[2009] KEHC 274 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the disputed land and that the respondents' actions amounted to interference with his proprietary rights. The court held that such interference, if allowed to continue, would result in damage and waste to the suit premises. The court determined that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 274 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Benard Wamalwa Namunwa; Plaintiff: Daniel Wanjala Namumwa; Defendant: Geoffrey Kiveu Jared; Applicant: David Musee Namumwa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 70 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Land Ownership, Boundary 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
Benard Wamalwa Namunwa
Plaintiff
Daniel Wanjala Namumwa
Plaintiff
Geoffrey Kiveu Jared
Defendant
David Musee Namumwa
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with his peaceful occupation of land parcel Ndivisi/Ndivisi/1170 pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction in a boundary dispute.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the disputed land and that the respondents' actions amounted to interference with his proprietary rights. The court held that such interference, if allowed to continue, would result in damage and waste to the suit premises. The court determined that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The court rejected the respondents' argument that only the Land Registrar could deal with boundary issues, holding that the court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to protect proprietary rights....
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The plaintiffs are restrained from interfering with the applicant's peaceful occupation of land parcel Ndivisi/Ndivisi/1170 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
Civil Suit 70 of 2004
BENARD WAMALWA NAMUNWA..............................................PLAINTIFFS
DANIEL WANJALA NAMUMWA
~VRS~
GEOFFREY KIVEU JARED...........................................................DEFENDANT
AND
DAVID MUSEE NAMUNWA.........................................................APPLICANT
RULING
The Defendant/Applicant in his application dated22ndSeptember, 2009 seeks for orders to restrain the Plaintiffs from interfering with his peaceful occupation Number Ndivisi/Ndivisi/1170. The grounds are that the land is registered in the name of the Applicant since 1980. The Plaintiffs are now interfering with his peaceful occupation of the land. They have now interfered with boundaries of the land. The Applicant contends that there is need to have the Plaintiffs/Respondents be restrained form such actions pending hearing and determination of the suit.
The application was opposed on grounds that the alleged interference with boundaries is not true. It is only the Land Registrar who can deal with issues of boundaries and not the court.
The Applicant was represented by Mr. Wattangah who held the brief of M/s Ebosi & Wandago Advocates. Mr. Makali represented the Respondents.
It is not disputed that the land Ndivisi/Ndivisi/1170 is registered in the name of the Defendant. It has also been shown that the Respondent’s land borders that of the Defendant. The said land is the subject matter of this case filed by the Respondents who allege that the title was obtained through fraud. Although the alleged interference of the boundaries has been denied, the Applicant has demonstrated that his rights to the land are being interfered with. Such interference will lead to damage and waste of the suit premises if it continues. The Defendant has absolute rights of ownership which must be protected until the suit is heard and determined.
I find the application merited and I allow it as prayed.
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
Dated, Delivered and Signed at Bungoma
This 7th day of December, 2009 in the presence of
Mr. Murunga for the Plaintiff and Mr. Milimo for Eboso for the Defendants.