[2010] KEHC 2281 (KLR)
The court found that the dispute over the suit land involved contested claims of ownership and occupation, with allegations of fraudulent registration and long-term possession by the defendant. The applicant failed to establish a clear prima facie case for an injunction, as the defendant had demonstrated...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2281 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Benjamin Kiprotich Langat; Plaintiff: Noah Chepkoech; Plaintiff: Hosea Kipkosgei Langat; Defendant: William Komen Cherambos alias William Kiplimo Komen
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 53 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for injunction refused; temporary injunction set aside; status quo orders issued.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Registration of Title
- 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
Benjamin Kiprotich Langat
Plaintiff
Noah Chepkoech
Plaintiff
Hosea Kipkosgei Langat
Plaintiff
William Komen Cherambos alias William Kiplimo Komen
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from entering the suit land.
- 2 Whether the defendant has established a right to occupation of the suit land pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- 3 Whether the Plaint should be amended to reflect the correct name of the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dispute over the suit land involved contested claims of ownership and occupation, with allegations of fraudulent registration and long-term possession by the defendant. The applicant failed to establish a clear prima facie case for an injunction, as the defendant had demonstrated longstanding occupation and the matter required full hearing and evidence. The court held that the status quo should be maintained, allowing the defendant to return to the land solely to reconstruct his house, but prohibiting both parties from cultivating or otherwise dealing with the land until the case is determined. The court also directed amendment of the Plaint to reflect the...
Court Disposition
Application for injunction refused; temporary injunction set aside; status quo orders issued.
Orders
- Injunction to restrain defendant from the land is refused.
- Defendant to be on land only for the purpose of reconstructing his house.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
57 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
Civil Suit 53 of 2009
BENJAMIN KIPROTICH LANGAT.............................................1ST PLAINTIFF
NOAH CHEPKOECH...................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
HOSEA KIPKOSGEI LANGAT...................................................3RD PLAINTIFF
=VERSUS=
WILLIAM KOMEN CHERAMBOS.................................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
Application 15th April, 2009 for injunction
I.Background
1. The Plaintiff No.3 and applicant herein Hosea Kipkosgei Langat bought two parcels of land being LR. Uasin Gishu Kikabus Settlement Scheme 1385 measuring 1. 850 ha from Plaintiff No. 1 Benjamin Kiprotich Langat and Plaintiff No. 2 Noah Chepkoech respectively for a sum of Kshs 1. 050,000/= on the 2nd January 2009.
2. The 3rd Plaintiff moved on the land but found resistance against the Defendant. The Defendant had entered the land irregularly and as a result, Plaintiff No.3 applicant seeks orders for injunction to restrain the said 3rd Defendant from entering the said land.
3. The Defendant William Komen Cherambos entered appearance and filed defence out of protest. In his reply to the allegation he stated that his names were not William Komen Cherambos but William Kiplimo Komen. He further stated that he was the first person allocated with land parcel LR. Uasin Gishu Kipkabus Settlement Scheme plot 342. An unknown person from Kisii one Charles Nyabuti P.O. Box 804 Kisii fraudulently registered his name.All along he has been awaiting to have the registration to be rectified. Instead the Plaintiff No. 3 has come into the land. He filed a counter claim. He resisted the injunction.
II.Opinion
4. There is an issue of land passing hands to the
3rd Plaintiff due to a wrong registration of one Charles Nyakundi to the Plaintiff’s parcel of land. This indeed is a matter of evidence. The Defendant/Respondent has shown through affidavit of neighbours that he had been in occupation of the suit land well over 15 years.
5. To my opinion there requires a status to be maintained
whilst the Court hears the parties herein.
The Plaintiff No.3 has been issued with
exparte injunction orders. The Defendant’s house has been demolished and it is unclear where he has been living when the injunction exparte orders persisted for the last 12 months.
6. I am of the opinion that the said Defendant be
reinstated on the land and to rebuild his house in the
interest of justice.
7. The said Defendant is not to cultivate neither should
Plaintiff No. 3 to cultivate or deal with the land without the leave of this Court.
8. The Plaintiff, I further order are to amend their Plaint to
include the Defendant’s correct names of William
Kiplimo Komen alias William Komen Cherambos.
9. Thereafter the issue of enjoining one Charles Nyakundi
to this case may be required to be undertaken; the
Registrar/Director of the Land Settlement Scheme.
10. I believe Plaintiff 1 and 2 may have been enjoined to
this suit because they are the registered owners of land
and not Hosea Kipkosgei Langat . All this may be the
part of evidence.
11. I accordingly decline to issue orders of injunction. The
temporary injunction granted a year ago is set aside.
In Summary
12. (a) Injunction to restrain Defendant from the land is
refused.
(b) Defendant to be only on land only for purpose of
reconstructing his house.
(c) There will be no cultivation by both parties.
(d) That the Respondent given leave to amend the Plaint.
(e) That Defendant or Plaintiffs may require enjoining
third party including the Director of Land Settlement
Schemes.
13. As the Advocate for the Defendant failed to attend
Court there will be no costs awarded to him.
DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY 2010 AT ELDORET.
M.A. ANG’AWA,
JUDGE.
Advocate:
(i)W.K. Kitur Advocate instructed by the firm of M/s J.K. Kiplagat & Co. Advocate for the Plaintiff/Applicant -Present/Absent
(ii)T. Kiboi Advocate instructed by the firm of M/s Chemitei & Co. Advocate for the Defendant/Respondent – Absent