[2017] KEELC 1493 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1493 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant lacked proprietary interest and locus standi in the suit property, as the land was registered in the name of the 2nd respondent/defendant. The applicant was not entitled to bring the application for an injunction, having no legal or equitable interest in the property. Consequently,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1493 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bakari Makokha; Respondent: Sylvester Odhiambo Wabuyabo; Respondent: Ali Abdalla Ali
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 220 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Locus Standi, Proprietary Interest, Status Quo Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Locus Standi Proprietary Interest Status Quo Orders

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

Bakari Makokha

Applicant

Sylvester Odhiambo Wabuyabo

Respondent

Ali Abdalla Ali

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi and proprietary interest in the suit property to sustain the application.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm justify the grant of an injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant lacked proprietary interest and locus standi in the suit property, as the land was registered in the name of the 2nd respondent/defendant. The applicant was not entitled to bring the application for an injunction, having no legal or equitable interest in the property. Consequently, the application did not meet the threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd. The court therefore dismissed the application with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.