[2014] KEHC 7376 (KLR)
The applicant established that he is the sole registered owner of the suit land and provided uncontroverted evidence of the respondent's trespass and land degradation. The respondent failed to file any response or appear at the hearing. The court found that the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 7376 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Apollo Ambutsi Shikanga; Defendant: Jomo Godwin Kororia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 120 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for interlocutory injunction allowed.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- 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
Apollo Ambutsi Shikanga
Plaintiff
Jomo Godwin Kororia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit land.
- 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
- 3 Whether the respondent's actions amount to trespass and degradation of the applicant's land.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant established that he is the sole registered owner of the suit land and provided uncontroverted evidence of the respondent's trespass and land degradation. The respondent failed to file any response or appear at the hearing. The court found that the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success and is entitled to the injunctive relief sought. Accordingly, an injunction was granted restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Court Disposition
Application for interlocutory injunction allowed.
Orders
- An injunction is issued against the respondent restraining him from interfering with the suit land until the hearing and determination of this suit.
- The respondent shall pay the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 120 OF 2013
APOLLO AMBUTSI SHIKANGA:.............................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JOMO GODWIN KORORIA:.........................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The applicant brought a notice of motion seeking injunction orders against the respondent restraining him from interfering with the applicant's parcel of land known as Kapkoi/Mabonde/Block 1 (ex-prison)229. The applicant obtained a temporary injunction ex-parte. When the application came up for hearing inter-partes, the parties indicated that they had entered into negotiations. They were given time to negotiate with a view of settling the matter.
When the negotiations failed, the parties took a hearing date for the hearing of the application. At the hearing of the application, the defendant/Respondent who was aware of the hearing date did not turn up. He had also not filed any grounds of opposition or replying affidavit to the application.
Mr. Ingosi for the applicant argued that the applicant is the sole registered owner of land parcel No. Kapkoi/Mabonde/Block 1 Ex-prison)229 hereinafter referred to as the suit land. Around September 2013, the respondent trespassed into the suit property and started excavating sand from the land without consent of the applicant The applicant argues that the respondent is degrading the land by scoping soil from therein and that is why he seeks an injunction against the respondent.
The applicant annexed a copy of title deed which shows that he is the sole proprietor of the suit land. He also annexed copies of photographs showing mounds of soil excavated on the said land with huge pits open. The respondent has not filed anything to controvert the averments of the applicant. The applicant has demonstrated that he is the sole registered owner of the suit land. I find that the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success. He is entitled to the injunction orders sought. I allow the application with the result that an injunction is issued against the respondent restraining him from interfering with the suit land until the hearing and determination of this suit. The respondent shall pay the costs of this application.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 20th day of January,2014.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of
Mr. Ingosi for applicant's
Court clerk Kassachoon.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE