[2021] KEELC 3561 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3561 (KLR)

The court found that the matter is of significant public interest and that the 1st Defendant had demonstrated a legitimate need to utilize funds allocated for fencing before the end of the financial year. However, the court was mindful not to prejudice the Plaintiffs' rights or allow any action that would amount to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 3561 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ben O. Okwengu; Plaintiff: Owira Meshark Ochuodho; Plaintiff: Sylas Okwengu; Plaintiff: Maurice Odhiambo; Plaintiff: Azael Wigwa; Plaintiff: Lilian Atieno Aoko; Plaintiff: Micah Herbert Magajia; Plaintiff: Onditi David Omondi; Defendant: Kenya Prison Service; Defendant: National Land Commission; Defendant: Land Registrar- Kisumu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 59 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Fence Suit Property Pending Hearing
Outcome
Application partially allowed.
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Status Quo Orders, Public Land Management, Injunctive Relief, Fencing Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Status Quo Orders Public Land Management Injunctive Relief Fencing Disputes

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ben O. Okwengu

Plaintiff

Owira Meshark Ochuodho

Plaintiff

Sylas Okwengu

Plaintiff

Maurice Odhiambo

Plaintiff

Azael Wigwa

Plaintiff

Lilian Atieno Aoko

Plaintiff

Micah Herbert Magajia

Plaintiff

Onditi David Omondi

Plaintiff

Kenya Prison Service

Defendant

National Land Commission

Defendant

Land Registrar- Kisumu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Fence Suit Property Pending Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant should be allowed to fence the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
  2. 2 Whether such fencing would prejudice the Plaintiffs' rights or amount to eviction or demolition of structures.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and public interest favour granting the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the matter is of significant public interest and that the 1st Defendant had demonstrated a legitimate need to utilize funds allocated for fencing before the end of the financial year. However, the court was mindful not to prejudice the Plaintiffs' rights or allow any action that would amount to eviction or demolition of structures. The court therefore allowed the 1st Defendant to fence only the areas not inhabited by the Plaintiffs, specifically restricting fencing to the 38 unsettled acres (farms and grazing grounds) and excluding the 26 acres of settlement areas. The court emphasized that the fencing should not result in eviction or demolition and granted liberty to...

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed.

Orders

  • The 1st Defendant is allowed to fence the areas of the suit property not inhabited by the Plaintiffs, specifically the 38 unsettled acres (farms and grazing grounds).
  • The fencing shall not amount to eviction of any party or demolition of any structure.