[2020] KEELC 429 (KLR)
The court found that the application for a temporary injunction was unopposed as neither the applicants nor the respondents appeared in court on the scheduled hearing date. The plaintiff had supported the application with an affidavit and set out the grounds for seeking the injunction. In the absence of any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 429 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Aziz Ndamwe Wakoli; Defendant: Edith Nafula Mukonambi; Defendant: Habib Salim Ndamwe (as Legal Representative of the Estate of Salim Ndamwe); Defendant: Mary Ptikeny; Defendant: Samson N. Lokurusa; Defendant: Reuben K. Chepkwony; Defendant: Jackson Plimo Ngolekong; Defendant: Thomas Lokeer; Defendant: Jackson Parng’eting Munoki; Defendant: Petero Mnangat; Defendant: Julius C. Koringura
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 54 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- Application for temporary injunction granted as unopposed.
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Interlocutory Applications, Land 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
Aziz Ndamwe Wakoli
Plaintiff
Edith Nafula Mukonambi
Defendant
Habib Salim Ndamwe (as Legal Representative of the Estate of Salim Ndamwe)
Defendant
Mary Ptikeny
Defendant
Samson N. Lokurusa
Defendant
Reuben K. Chepkwony
Defendant
Jackson Plimo Ngolekong
Defendant
Thomas Lokeer
Defendant
Jackson Parng’eting Munoki
Defendant
Petero Mnangat
Defendant
Julius C. Koringura
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for a temporary injunction was unopposed as neither the applicants nor the respondents appeared in court on the scheduled hearing date. The plaintiff had supported the application with an affidavit and set out the grounds for seeking the injunction. In the absence of any opposition or contrary evidence from the defendants, the court exercised its discretion to grant the orders sought in the application, specifically restraining the defendants and their agents from dealing with the suit land in any manner adverse to the plaintiff's interests pending the hearing and final determination of the main suit.
Court Disposition
Application for temporary injunction granted as unopposed.
Orders
- The defendants/respondents and/or their agents and/or servants and/or employees and/or anyone acting under their authority and/or instructions and also all the proposed defendants/respondents and/or their agents and/or servants and/or employees and/or anyone acting under their authority and/or instructions are...
- Costs to be provided for.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 54 OF 1999
AZIZ NDAMWE WAKOLI...........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EDITH NAFULA MUKONAMBI......................1ST DEFENDANT
HABIB SALIM NDAMWE................................2ND DEFENDANT
(Sued as Legal Representative of the Estate of SALIM NDAMWE
MARY PTIKENY.................................................3RD DEFENDANT
SAMSON N. LOKURUSA..................................4TH DEFENDANT
REUBEN K. CHEPKWONY..............................5TH DEFENDANT
JACKSON PLIMO NGOLEKONG..................6TH DEFENDANT
THOMAS LOKEER............................................7TH DEFENDANT
JACKSON PARNG’ETING MUNOKI.............8TH DEFENDANT
PETERO MNANGAT..........................................9TH DEFENDANT
JULIUS C. KORINGURA.................................10TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The application dated 21/10/2020and filed in court on 22/10/2020, has been bought under Section 1,1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63(e)of the Civil Procedure Act andOrder 8 Rules 3, 5and7, Order 40 Rule 1 and 3and Order 51 Rule 1of theCivil Procedure Rules, Article 159of theConstitutionofKenya.The plaintiff seeks the following orders:-
(a)…spent
(b)…spent
(c)The defendants/respondents and/or their agents and/or servants and/or employees and/or anyone acting under their authority and/or instructions and also all the proposed defendants/respondents and/or their agents and/or servants and/or employees and/or anyone acting under their authority and/or instructions be and are hereby restrained by means of temporary injunction from selling and/or charging and/or subdividing and/or constructing anything and/or developing and/or doing anything against the interest of the plaintiff/applicant and/or change the character of the case and/or the suit land known as pending the hearing and final determination of the main suit.
(b) The costs be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the affidavits sworn by the plaintiff on 21/10/2020.
3. The court granted the parties a hearing date, that is 17/11/2020 but neither the applicants nor the respondents appeared before court. Since the application is unopposed, I hereby grant it in terms of prayer No. 3.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signedanddeliveredatKitale via electronic mail on this 1st day of December, 2020.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE, ELC, KITALE