[2017] KEELC 2853 (KLR)
The court found that the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was fundamentally a boundary dispute arising from the subdivision of the original land parcel into Ugenya/Ambira/3855 and Ugenya/Ambira/3856. The Plaintiff alleged encroachment by the Defendants, but the evidence pointed to a disagreement over...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2853 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Andrew Onyango; Defendant: Anjelina Awuor Onyango; Defendant: Christopher Omondi Onyango; Defendant: Daniel Jeremy Onyango
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 275 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
- Legal Topics
- Boundary Disputes, Temporary Injunctions, Land Registration, Encroachment
- 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
Andrew Onyango
Plaintiff
Anjelina Awuor Onyango
Defendant
Christopher Omondi Onyango
Defendant
Daniel Jeremy Onyango
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success for a temporary injunction order at this interlocutory stage.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff should have lodged a boundary dispute with the Land Registrar before approaching the court.
- 3 What order to issue regarding the application for injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was fundamentally a boundary dispute arising from the subdivision of the original land parcel into Ugenya/Ambira/3855 and Ugenya/Ambira/3856. The Plaintiff alleged encroachment by the Defendants, but the evidence pointed to a disagreement over the precise boundary between the parcels. Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act requires such disputes to be first determined by the Land Registrar. The Plaintiff had not exhausted this statutory procedure before seeking court intervention. Furthermore, the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, as he did not demonstrate...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
Orders
- The Plaintiff's notice of motion dated 21st October 2016 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KISUMU
ELC CASE NO.275 OF 2016
ANDREW ONYANGO.................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ANJELINA AWUOR ONYANGO....................................................1ST DEFENDANT
CHRISTOPHER OMONDI ONYANGO..........................................2ND DEFENDANT
DANIEL JEREMY ONYANGO........................................................3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Andrew Onyango, the Plaintiff, filed the notice of motion dated 21st October 2016 against Anjelina Awuor Onyango, Christopher Omondi OnyangoandDaniel Jeremey Onyango, the 1st to 3rd Defendant respectively, seeking to restrain them, by themselves or their agents, from “trespassing onto, entering into, disposing, alienating, fencing, building, tilling and in any other manner interfering with the Plaintiff’s parcel of land rightly known as South Ugenya/Ambira/3856 pending the hearing and determination of this suit”. The application is based on the five grounds on its face and is supported by the affidavit of the Plaintiff sworn on the 21st October 2016.
2. The application is opposed by the Defendants through the replying affidavit of the 2nd Defendant sworn on the 25th November 2016.
3. The application came up for hearing on the 8th February 2017 when Mr. Nyanga and Mamwari, learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendants respectively made their oral rival submissions.
4. The following are the issues for determination by the court;
a. Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success for temporary injunction order to issue at this interlocutory stage.
b. What order to issue.
c. Who pays the costs.
5. The court has carefully considered the grounds on the notice of motion, affidavit evidence by both sides, the oral rival submission by both counsel and come to the following findings:
a. That land parcels Ugenya/Ambira/3855 and3856 were registered on the 28th April 2016 in the names of the 2nd Defendant and Plaintiff respectively following the subdivision of land parcel Ugenya/Ambira/15.
b. That the two parcels therefore share a common boundary.
c. That the 2nd Defendant has sold a portion of 0. 05 hectares out of his land parcel Ugenya/Ambira/3855 measuring 0. 6 hectares to the 3rd Defendant. That the 3rd Defendant has fenced off the portion he has bought and it is that fencing that the Plaintiff claims has encroached onto his land Ugenya/Ambira/3856 by ¾ of an acre. The 2nd Defendant has denied that the portion he sold to the 3rd Defendant has encroached onto the Plaintiff’s land.
d. That the Plaintiff’s and 2nd Defendant’s affidavit evidence points to the existence of a dispute over the boundary position between their parcels of land. That under the provisions of Section 18 (2) of the Land Registration Act No.3 of 2012, the Plaintiff should have lodged a boundary dispute with the Land Registrar before coming to this court. That it is after the Land Registrar has determined the boundary position that the parties would be in a position to confirm whether either of them had encroached onto the other’s land and the acreage of encroachment thereof.
e. That in view of the finding in (d) above, the court is of the considered view that the Plaintiff has failed to established a prima facie case to warrant the issuance of temporary injunction. The Plaintiff has not shown the nature of loss or damage that he is likely to suffer that cannot be computated into monetary terms if the said temporary injunction order is not issued. The court is also of the view that the balance of convenience does not tilt to the Plaintiff’s favour.
6. That flowing from the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s notice of motion dated 21st October 2016 is without merit and is dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND – JUDGE
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 17TH DAY OF MAY 2017
In presence of;
Plaintiff Absent
Defendant Absent
Counsel M/S Omol;o for the Plaintiff
Mr. Mamwari for the Defendants
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND – JUDGE
17/5/2017
17th May 2017
S.M. Kibunja Judge
Oyugi court assistant
Mr. Mamwari for the Defendant
M/S Omolo for Plaintiff
Court: Ruling dated and delivered in open court in presence of m/s Omolo and Mr. Manwari for the Plaintiff and Defendants respectively.
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND – JUDGE
17/5/2017