[2022] KEELC 3147 (KLR)
The court found that the interlocutory motion for a temporary injunction was already spent, as status quo orders had previously been issued and pretrial directions taken. There was therefore no live issue for the court to determine in the motion. The court directed the parties to proceed to take a hearing date for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 3147 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James Erick Ouma Awandu; Defendant: Elisha Otieno Odindo; Defendant: Christine Awino Omamo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E003 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Motion
- Outcome
- Interlocutory motion found to be spent; no orders granted on the motion.
- Judges
- AY Koross
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Status Quo Orders, Trespass, Pretrial Directions
- 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
James Erick Ouma Awandu
Plaintiff
Elisha Otieno Odindo
Defendant
Christine Awino Omamo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction against the defendants pending hearing and determination of the motion.
- 2 Whether there is any pending interlocutory application for the court to determine.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the interlocutory motion for a temporary injunction was already spent, as status quo orders had previously been issued and pretrial directions taken. There was therefore no live issue for the court to determine in the motion. The court directed the parties to proceed to take a hearing date for the main suit, as the interim orders and procedural steps had already addressed the immediate concerns raised by the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory motion found to be spent; no orders granted on the motion.
Orders
- Parties to appear before the court on 21/09/2022 for purposes of taking a hearing date of the main suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Awandu v Odindo & another (Environment & Land Case E003 of 2022) [2022] KEELC 3147 (KLR) (2 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 3147 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Siaya
Environment & Land Case E003 of 2022
AY Koross, J
June 2, 2022
Between
James Erick Ouma Awandu
Plaintiff
and
Elisha Otieno Odindo
1st Defendant
Christine Awino Omamo
2nd Defendant
Ruling
1. As the owner of North Gem/Malunga/1151 (“the suit property”), the plaintiff who was then acting in person filed a suit against the defendants. He claimed that the defendants had trespassed on his land, cut down trees and generally destroyed the suit property. In his plaint dated 04/02/2022, the plaintiff prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and their servants from entering into, cutting down trees, making bricks or in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s suit property, special damages, interest thereon and costs of the suit.
2. Contemporaneously with the plaint, the plaintiff filed the instant motion dated 04/02/2022 which is the subject of this ruling.
3. The Motion was brought within the provisions of section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and order 39 rule 1, 2, 2A (1) and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction pending hearing and determination of the motion. He did not seek any orders of temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
4. When this matter came before court on 22/02/2022, the defendants counsel Mr. Korongo informed court that the plaintiff could be granted what he termed as “stay orders” and sought for a date for hearing of the main suit.
5. The plaintiff informed court that he was in occupation of the suit property. The court issued orders of status quo pending the hearing and determination of the main suit and directed parties to appear before the Deputy Registrar for pretrial directions and issued certain timelines for them to comply with order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
6. Directions were issued and when the matter appeared before me on 4/5/2022 and probably unaware that of the orders earlier issued, Olel, Onyango, Ingutia Advocates LLP who had since been instructed to come on record for the plaintiff sought for a ruling date of the purported pending motion.
7. As the court was penning down its ruling, it came to its attention that the motion was spent and thus there is nothing left for it to determine.
8. Having taken pretrial directions, the parties shall appear before me on 21/09/2022 for purposes of taking a hearing date of the main suit.
9. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED AND DATED AT SIAYA THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2022. HON. A. Y. KOROSSJUDGE2/6/2022Ruling delivered virtually through Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing Platform in the Presence of:N/A for the partiesCourt assistant: Ishmael Orwa