[2017] KEELC 3218 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case by providing evidence of ownership of the suit land and demonstrating that the defendant had no legal right to occupy or interfere with it. The defendant's failure to file any response or present evidence in opposition left the plaintiff's case...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3218 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Anna Chebet Langat; Defendant: David Tessot
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 427 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application for injunction allowed
- Judges
- MA Silau
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Trespass to Land, Ownership Disputes
- 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
Anna Chebet Langat
Plaintiff
David Tessot
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the defendant has any legal right to remain on the suit land pending determination of the suit.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive possession of the suit land pending hearing and determination of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case by providing evidence of ownership of the suit land and demonstrating that the defendant had no legal right to occupy or interfere with it. The defendant's failure to file any response or present evidence in opposition left the plaintiff's case unchallenged. The court concluded that the plaintiff deserved to be in possession of the land pending the determination of the suit and granted the interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from entering, occupying, or interfering with the suit property.
Court Disposition
application for injunction allowed
Orders
- Pending hearing and determination of the case, the defendant is restrained from entering, being upon, living in, cultivating, or in any other way making use of land parcel Nakuru/TinetKabongoi Settlement Scheme/1304 or interfering with the plaintiff's possession.
- The plaintiff shall have the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
ELC NO. 427 OF 2016
ANNA CHEBET LANGAT.....................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DAVID TESSOT..................................DEFENDANT
RULING
(Application for injunction; principles to be applied; plaintiff being owner of suit land and defendant interfering with it; no response filed by the defendant; application allowed; defendant to stay away from the suit land pending hearing of the suit)
1. This suit was commenced by way of plaint filed on 11 October 2016. In the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that she is the owner of the land parcel Nakuru/TinetKabongoi Settlement Scheme/1304. She has pleaded that this land was allocated to her in the year 1977 by the Ministry of Lands. She has pleaded that she has been in peaceful occupation of the land until the month of June 2015, when the defendant forcefully invaded the property. The defendant upon being confronted, fled, only to return in the month of February 2016. It is averred that the defendant constructed some temporary structures and started sowing maize without any colour of right. In the suit, the plaintiff wants an order that the defendant be permanently restrained from the land, an eviction order and vacant possession.
2. Together with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for injunction seeking to have the defendant restrained from the land pending hearing and determination of the case. It is that application which is the subject of this ruling.
3. Despite being served, the defendant has not filed anything to oppose the motion. The only material that I have is therefore that presented by the plaintiff. I have gone through the affidavit in support of the application. I have seen annexed, a copy of the title deed showing that the plaintiff was issued with title to the suit land on 12 October 2005. I have also seen photographs depicting the alleged trespass on the part of the defendant.
4. The defendant has not filed anything to demonstrate that he has any rights over the suit land. I do not see why he should remain on the suit land pending the hearing of the case. I am of the view that the plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success and deserves to be in possession of the land as we determine the case.
5. For the above reasons, I allow this application for injunction. I hereby issue an order, that pending the hearing and determination of this case, the defendant be hereby restrained from entering, being upon, living in, cultivating, or in any other way making use of the land parcel Nakuru/TinetKabongoi Settlement Scheme/1304 or in any other way interfere with the plaintiff's possession.
6. The plaintiff shall also have the costs of this case.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this 1st day of March 2017.
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
AT NAKURU
In presence of :
No appearance on the part of M/s Ikua Mwangi &Co Advocates for the plaintiff/applicant
No appearance on the part of the respondent
Court Assistant :Nelima
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
AT NAKURU