[2012] KEHC 1586 (KLR)
The plaintiff failed to produce any evidence, such as a title deed or search certificate, to demonstrate that he was ever the registered proprietor of land parcel E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/2199. All the resultant parcels are registered in the name of the 1st defendant. In the absence of proof of ownership or evidence of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1586 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ali Malala Wamukoya; Defendant: Ali Olando Okweto; Defendant: District Lands Registrar Bungoma; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 6 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Land Title Registration, Fraudulent Transfer of Land, Injunctive Relief, Status Quo Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ali Malala Wamukoya
Plaintiff
Ali Olando Okweto
Defendant
District Lands Registrar Bungoma
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff demonstrated ownership of land parcel E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/2199 sufficient to warrant injunctive relief.
- 2 Whether the subdivision and registration of resultant parcels in the 1st defendant's name was fraudulent.
- 3 Whether an injunction can issue against a registered proprietor of land.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff failed to produce any evidence, such as a title deed or search certificate, to demonstrate that he was ever the registered proprietor of land parcel E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/2199. All the resultant parcels are registered in the name of the 1st defendant. In the absence of proof of ownership or evidence of fraud, the court found no basis to grant an injunction restraining the registered proprietor from dealing with the land. The application for a temporary injunction was therefore dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for a temporary injunction is dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Bungoma
Civil Case 6 of 2010 [if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
ALI MALALA WAMUKOYA::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF
~VRS~
ALI OLANDO OKWETO:::::::::::::::: 1ST DEFENDANT
THE DISTRICT LANDS
REGISTRAR BUNGOMA::::::::::::::: 2ND DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL::::::::::::::: 3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
There is no dispute that land parcel no.E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/2199 has been subdivided into land parcels E. Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/13027, 13028, 13029, 13030, 13031, 13032 and 13033. The subdivisions are each in the name of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff’s case is that he was the registered proprietor of the original title (2199) which the Defendants fraudulently caused to be sub-divided into the above titles and registered in the name of the 1st Defendant. The suit was brought to have the titles cancelled and to have them revert into the original title in the name of the Plaintiff. With the suit was filed an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules for a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants, and all those acting through them, from wasting, damaging, alienating, trespassing, selling, removing and/or otherwise disposing the parcels. In the alternative, an order was sought for the Defendants to maintain status quoas of 25/1/2010 over the suit parcels.
The defence of the 1st Defendant was that he was the registered proprietor of 2199 which he subsequently subdivided as indicated and therefore there was no merit in the suit and application as the Plaintiff has no claim to the parcels.
The Plaintiff did not demonstrate by production of title or search certificate that he was at any time the registered proprietor of 2199. The resultant parcels are all registered in the name of the 1st Defendant. It would be unusual to injunct the registered owner of a piece of land, or to put a restraint on his right to own, occupy and use the land. The application has no merit and is dismissed with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Bungoma this 10th day of October, 2012.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE