[2017] KEELC 3714 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants are the registered owners of the suit parcels and that the respondent did not dispute excavating and levelling the land without the applicants' consent. The respondent's reliance on the Ndungu report and claims of irregular allocation were not acted upon through proper legal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3714 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Awadh Saleh Said; Applicant: Said Swaleh Said; Respondent: County Government of Mombasa
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 270 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for temporary injunction allowed.
- Judges
- AA Omollo
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Title to Land, Road Reserves, Natural Justice, Constitutional Property Rights
- 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
Awadh Saleh Said
Applicant
Said Swaleh Said
Applicant
County Government of Mombasa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from excavating and damaging the suit parcels of land pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the respondent's actions amount to a breach of the applicants' constitutional right to property under Article 40.
- 3 Whether the respondent followed due process and the rules of natural justice before acting on the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants are the registered owners of the suit parcels and that the respondent did not dispute excavating and levelling the land without the applicants' consent. The respondent's reliance on the Ndungu report and claims of irregular allocation were not acted upon through proper legal channels, nor was any notice or hearing afforded to the applicants as required by law. The applicants' titles remain valid and uncancelled, and the respondent's actions amounted to a breach of the applicants' constitutional rights to property and fair administrative action. The court held that the applicants had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, that they...
Court Disposition
Application for temporary injunction allowed.
Orders
- The defendant, by itself, servants, agents, employees or otherwise, is restrained by temporary injunction from continuing with digging, excavation and damage on parcels no. MOMBASA/BLOCK 16/1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1322, 1327, 1331, 1333 and 1335 pending the hearing and...
- Costs of the application to the applicants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MOMBASA
LAND CASE NO. 270 OF 2015
1. AWADH SALEH SAID
2. SAID SWALEH SAID…………...........….....APPLICANTS
=VERSUS=
COUNTY GOVERNMENTOF MOMBASA….RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The plaintiffs moved this court by their application dated 22nd October 2015 seeking the following orders;
1. Spent
2. Spent
3. That the defendant by itself, servants, agents, employees or otherwise be restrained by temporary injunction from continuing with digging, excavation and damage on that land known as parcels no. MOMBASA/BLOCK 16/1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1322, 1327, 1331, 1333 and 1335registered in the names of the plaintiffs pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
4. Costs of the application be provided.
2. The application is supported by the grounds on the face of it and the affidavit of Swaleh Hussein Saleh who holds a power of attorney from the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs. The applicant pleads that they are the owners of the suit parcels which the defendant invaded on 8th October 2015 by excavating, digging trenches & levelling, thus damaging the same.
3. The applicants avers the defendant’s action amounts to breach of their right to property as envisaged in article 40 of the Constitution and that unless the defendant is restrained, the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss. The applicants deposed that they are willing to give undertaking as to damages.
4. The application is opposed by the defendant vide a replying affidavit sworn by Caxton Mbaru Kai the County Surveyor. Mr. Kai deposed that the suit plots MSA BLOCK XVI/130 to 1315 were irregularly created from the road reserve thus changing the width of the road from 30 metres to 15 metres as shown in their survey plan. That the allocations were never circulated to the relevant agencies as is the norm for their input. Mr. Kai deposed further that these plots were recommended to be revoked and revert back to original usage by the Ndungu report.
5. Both parties filed written submissions forming part of their arguments for and against the granting of the orders sought. I have had occasion to read and consider the same. From the contents of the affidavit in support of the application, it’s not in dispute the applicants are holding title to the suit properties. It is also not in dispute. It is also not denied by the defendant that it is excavating, digging and levelling the suit parcels without the consent of the applicants.
6. The defendant argues that the suit parcels were irregularly created and allocated to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs deposed that they have owned these parcels of land for the last 20 years. The copy of the title deed annexed shows the applicants were issued with title on 22nd April 1994. The defendant has put reliance on the recommendation of the Ndungu report that was compiled way back in June 2004. From 2004 to date, the defendant did not take any steps to actualise the recommendations made by the Ndungu report or challenge the applicants’ title in the manner provided under the law.
7. Instead the defendant has sought to repossess what they state is a road reserve without first serving the applicants with any form of notice in line with the rules of natural justice (now put in the law under article 47 of the Constitution). The fact that the applicants title has not been cancelled and that the works are being undertaken on their without their consent or notice is a clear demonstration that the applicants have shown a prima facie case with a probability of succeeding. The defendant may have a valid defence but it should not be allowed to put the cart before the horse in blatant breach of the law as this may result to a reign of lawless.
8. The applicants also deposed that this land is in Majengo area which is located within the Central business district of Mombasa thus it is prime land. Land is valuable commodity that should not be taken without affording the owner compensation or a fair hearing. The defendant has not pleaded their willingness to compensate the applicants in the event this suit succeeds. In the circumstances of this case, if defendants are allowed to continue with the works before the issues in controversy are resolved then the applicants are likely to suffer irreparable loss since if the road is done, getting back the land to the state it was in before may be may be no mean task.
9. The defendant through their survey plan document sought to explain that the applicants’ titles were curved out of a road reserve. However such an allegation can only be proved by adducing evidence as the survey plan does not give the measurements stated in the replying affidavit.
10. Consequently, I am satisfied this application meets the threshold set for granting temporary order of injunction as the applicants have demonstrated through their pleadings the principles to be considered in law in granting such orders. I do allow it in terms of prayers 3 & 4 of the motion.
Dated and Delivered at Mombasa this 24th day of Jan 2017
A. OMOLLO
JUDGE