[2018] KEELC 1640 (KLR)
The court found that although the plaintiff is in possession of a title deed to the suit land, the defendant has demonstrated that the grant which gave rise to the title is under challenge in ongoing succession proceedings. The defendant is in occupation of the disputed portion, and granting the orders sought would...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 1640 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Andrew Sinja; Defendant: James M. Sinja
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 11 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Title Disputes, Succession Challenges
- 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 Sinja
Plaintiff
James M. Sinja
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the defendant's occupation and use of the disputed portion amounts to trespass in light of ongoing succession proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the plaintiff is in possession of a title deed to the suit land, the defendant has demonstrated that the grant which gave rise to the title is under challenge in ongoing succession proceedings. The defendant is in occupation of the disputed portion, and granting the orders sought would amount to a mandatory injunction, which is generally discouraged at the interlocutory stage. The court therefore declined to grant the temporary injunction, holding that the circumstances did not warrant such relief pending the outcome of the succession proceedings.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction is declined.
- Each party shall bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
ELC CASE NO. 11 OF 2018
ANDREW SINJA.................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMES M. SINJA.............DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The plaintiff brought an application dated 6/2/2018seeking the following principal order:
“An order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant or his agents from encroaching trespassing on, and /or carrying out any operations or activities of any nature or in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s interest over the suit land Title Number Cherangany /Kapcherop /2799 pending the hearing and determination of this suit”
2. The grounds on which the application is based are on the face of the application and in the sworn supporting affidavit of the plaintiff dated 6th February 2018 which is attached to the motion.
3. Briefly, however, they are as follows: the plaintiff owns the suit land part of Land Parcel Number Cherangany /Kapcherop/2799;that the defendant wrongfully and forcefully and without any justification invaded the suit property and trespassed onto a portion measuring 0. 13 acres, ploughed the same and has threatened to construct a house thereon and remain in such wrongful possession.
4. The defendant’s response is contained in a replying affidavit dated 12th February, 2018 and filed on the same date. He avers that the land emanated from a subdivision of the land belonging to his deceased father Naibei Sinja after irregular procurement of Letters of Administration without the involvement of all beneficiaries to the estate of the deceased’s estate. There was no subdivision on the ground and the defendant has been utilizing the disputed portion and he has not been aware of the subdivision of the land it is located in. He also avers that there is a summons for the revocation of the grant and that the instant application is prompted by the plaintiff’s knowledge that the defendant has commenced a challenge to the grant that gave the plaintiff land.
5. The plaintiff denied these averments of the defendant through an affidavit dated 19th March, 2018.
6. Though I find that the plaintiff is in possession of a title deed to the land, the defendant has also demonstrated that the grant that gave rise to the title document is under assault by exhibiting the summons for revocation of the grant in the succession proceedings in Kitale High Court Succession Cause No 26 of 2013. The determination has yet to be made in that summons for revocation of Grant. It is noted that the defendant is in occupation of the portion and that orders that the defendant vacate the same might amount to mandatory injunction which is discouraged in practice at the interlocutory stage.
7. I therefore find that the application by the plaintiff cannot be granted. The same is declined and each party shall bear their own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 31st day of May, 2018.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
31/5/2018
Coram:
Before - Mwangi Njoroge, Judge
Court Assistant - Picoty
Mr. Lowasikou for respondent
N/A for Applicant.
COURT
Ruling read in open court.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
31/5/2018