[2019] KEELC 2639 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2639 (KLR)

The court found that the interim orders of 12.3.2019 were properly issued after being satisfied that service had been effected on the defendant. There was no sufficient ground to set aside, review, or discharge the orders. However, the court acknowledged that the orders appeared to have been misused by the plaintiff...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2639 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Annah Kimitei (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the late Nyongoio Kimitei); Defendant: James Kiprop Mitei; Defendant: Justine Kiplimo Rotich; Defendant: Leah Chebet Kimutai; Defendant: Roncers Karmait Murkomen; Defendant: Geoffrey Kiprotich Komen; Defendant: Daniel Murkomen
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 36 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside, Review, or Discharge Interim Orders
Outcome
Application to set aside, review, or discharge interim orders dismissed; additional restraining order granted against plaintiff.
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Service of Process, Eviction Disputes, Succession and Estates
Source Language
en
Land and Property Interlocutory Injunctions Service of Process Eviction Disputes Succession and Estates

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annah Kimitei (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the late Nyongoio Kimitei)

Plaintiff

James Kiprop Mitei

Defendant

Justine Kiplimo Rotich

Defendant

Leah Chebet Kimutai

Defendant

Roncers Karmait Murkomen

Defendant

Geoffrey Kiprotich Komen

Defendant

Daniel Murkomen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside, Review, or Discharge Interim Orders

  1. 1 Whether the interim orders issued on 12.3.2019 should be set aside, reviewed, or discharged for lack of service or concealment.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff misused the court orders to evict the 1st defendant and destroy his property.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff should be restrained from interfering with the 1st defendant's use of the suit property pending determination of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the interim orders of 12.3.2019 were properly issued after being satisfied that service had been effected on the defendant. There was no sufficient ground to set aside, review, or discharge the orders. However, the court acknowledged that the orders appeared to have been misused by the plaintiff to destroy the 1st defendant's property. To prevent further misuse and to preserve the status quo, the court ordered that the plaintiff be restrained from evicting or interfering with the 1st defendant's use of the suit property until the hearing and determination of the main suit. The court also directed the police to continue investigating the alleged destruction of...

Court Disposition

Application to set aside, review, or discharge interim orders dismissed; additional restraining order granted against plaintiff.

Orders

  • The application to set aside, review, or discharge the orders of 12.3.2019 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is restrained from evicting the 1st defendant or interfering with his utilization of the suit parcel until hearing and determination of the suit.