[2017] KEELC 3673 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not established a clear and straightforward case for the grant of a mandatory injunction, as the ownership of the suit property and the relationship between the property and the allocation by the society were disputed and required determination at trial. The evidence presented...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3673 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Beatrice Njeri Nganga; Respondent: Munayo Ingoka
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 18 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed; status quo to be maintained
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Ownership Dispute, Status Quo Orders
- 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
Beatrice Njeri Nganga
Applicant
Munayo Ingoka
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with the suit property pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether a mandatory injunction should issue requiring the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the applicant.
- 3 Whether the applicant has established a clear case for the grant of mandatory or prohibitory injunctions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not established a clear and straightforward case for the grant of a mandatory injunction, as the ownership of the suit property and the relationship between the property and the allocation by the society were disputed and required determination at trial. The evidence presented by both parties raised questions as to the root of title and the legitimacy of the applicant's and respondent's claims. Granting the orders sought would have amounted to an eviction of the respondent before the substantive issues were resolved. Accordingly, the court held that the appropriate course was to maintain the prevailing status quo pending the hearing and determination...
Court Disposition
application dismissed; status quo to be maintained
Orders
- The application dated 23rd January, 2015 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- The status quo prevailing at the date of this Ruling to be maintained pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MACHAKOS
E.L.C. NO.18 OF 2015
BEATRICE NJERI NGANGA..........................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
MUNYAO INGOKA.................................DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The application before me is the one dated 23rd January, 2015 in which the Plaintiff is asking for the following reliefs:
1. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue temporary injunction against the Respondent whether by himself, his servants, employees or persons acting under him from transferring, disposing, alienating, wasting, erecting structures, interfering with the Applicant’s ownership and enjoyment of the suit property or in any way dealing with the suit property pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
2. THAT a mandatory injunction against the Respondent, his agents, servants or any person acting under or for him requiring the Respondent, his agents, servants or persons acting under or for him to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the Applicant.
3. THAT costs of this application be provided for.
The Application is supported by the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in which she has deponed that she is the owner of a parcel of land known as Athi River/Athi River Block 1/863 ( the suit property) which she purchased from Michael Mulwa Mutindi on 28th June, 2012.
It is the Plaintiff’s/Applicant’s case that sometimes in the year 2013, the Respondent trespassed on the suit property and started wasting and damaging the said land.
In his response, the Defendant deponed that he is a son of the late Mutisya Ingoka; that the suit property formerly belonged to Katelembo Athiani Muputi Farming and Ranching Co-operative Society limited and that the late Mutisya Ingoka subscribed for shares in the said society.
According to the Defendant, his late father was allocated the suit property by the Society and that the same devolved to him after the demise of his father.
It is the Respondent’s case that him, together with his family have been in occupation of the land and that if the orders that the Applicant is seeking are granted, they will amount to eviction orders.
The Plaintiff’s advocate submitted that the Applicant has shown that she acquired the suit property validly through a sale agreement; that a certificate of title was subsequently entered in her favour and that there is no evidence to show that the Applicant acquired the Title Deed fraudulently, unprocedurally, illegally or through a corrupt scheme.
Counsel submitted that the Respondent has no locus to reply to the suit in the name of a deceased person.
The Defendant’s Counsel submitted that the person who sold the suit property to the Plaintiff was not the lawful owner of the land; that granting an injunction at this stage would amount to an eviction and that the Plaintiff has neither proved any special circumstances nor a clear case to warrant the grant of a mandatory injunction.
The Plaintiff’s case is premised on the ground that she purchased the suit property from one Michael Mulwa Mutindi vide an agreement dated 28th June, 2012.
The Plaintiff has annexed on her Affidavit, a copy of the Title Deed that was issued to Michael Mutindi on 25th May, 2011 and the Title Deed that was subsequently issued to him, on 6th September, 2012.
The Defendant on the other hand claims that the suit property was allocated to his late father and that he is occupying the land on that basis.
The Defendant has annexed on his Replying Affidavit a copy of a letter from Katelembo Athiani Muputi Farming and Ranching Co-operative Society limited showing that the suit property is part of plot number 1312 which was owned by the society and which was allocated to member number 980.
Although the Defendant has not exhibited any evidence to show that the Society ever owned the suit property or plot number 1312, the Plaintiff did not annex a copy of the green card to enable the court to ascertain if indeed the person who sold to her the suit property was the first registered owner, or it was the Society.
Considering that the court will have to establish at trial the relationship between plot number 1312 and the suit property, and in view of the fact that the orders that the Plaintiff is seeking will amount to the eviction of the Defendant from the suit property, I find and hold that this is not an easy and clear case to warrant the issue of a mandatory injunction.
In the circumstances, the most appropriate order to issue in this matter is for the maintenance of the prevailing status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
For those reasons, I make the following orders:
a. The application dated 23rd January, 2015 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
b. The status quo prevailing at the date of this Ruling to be maintained pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
c. Each party to bear his or her own costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Machakos this27th Day of January, 2017.
O. A. ANGOTE
JUDGE