[2022] KEELC 1275 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 1275 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, having demonstrated acquisition and possession of the suit property since 2009. The plaintiff's evidence of ownership and uninterrupted possession was uncontroverted, as the defendants failed to respond. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 1275 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Allan Wachira Mwangi; Defendant: Macharia Gatiba; Defendant: Embakasi Ranching Company Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E375 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application granted
Judges
JA Mogeni
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Harm
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Temporary Injunctions Land Ownership Disputes Prima Facie Case Irreparable Harm

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Wachira Mwangi

Plaintiff

Macharia Gatiba

Defendant

Embakasi Ranching Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff stands to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, having demonstrated acquisition and possession of the suit property since 2009. The plaintiff's evidence of ownership and uninterrupted possession was uncontroverted, as the defendants failed to respond. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable harm, given the ongoing excavation and construction activities by the 1st defendant, which could permanently alter the property. The balance of convenience favoured preservation of the property pending trial. Accordingly, the court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the...

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining the defendants, their employees, servants, agents and/or assigns or any other person claiming through them from trespassing, encroaching, developing, transferring, encumbering, issuing title or dealing in any manner with Plot Number N236. MAP 7 covering LR 1094/situated...
  • The costs of this application to be borne by the defendants/respondents.