[2018] KEELC 1684 (KLR)
The court found that the erection of a temporary iron sheet fence by the respondent did not amount to a breach of the status quo order previously issued. The fence was justified as it was intended to protect the property from vandalism and prevent accidents involving children and the water-filled foundation. There...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 1684 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Benson Ongoto Ogot; Plaintiff: Josephine Achieng Akoth; Defendant: Kanyuku Wanjau
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 986 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Status Quo Orders, Interlocutory Injunctions, Demolition 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
Benson Ongoto Ogot
Plaintiff
Josephine Achieng Akoth
Plaintiff
Kanyuku Wanjau
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the erection of a perimeter fence by the defendant constituted a breach of the court's status quo order.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to orders for demolition of the fence and further preservation of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the erection of a temporary iron sheet fence by the respondent did not amount to a breach of the status quo order previously issued. The fence was justified as it was intended to protect the property from vandalism and prevent accidents involving children and the water-filled foundation. There was no evidence that the respondent continued with construction in contravention of the court order. The application by the plaintiffs was deemed to lack merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent, as it was brought for the sole purpose of delaying the resolution of the substantive dispute.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The plaintiffs' application dated 23rd January 2018 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ELC NO. 986 OF 2015
BENSON ONGOTO OGOT.............................1ST PLAINTIFF
JOSEPHINE ACHIENG AKOTH.................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KANYUKU WANJAU.........................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This is a ruling in respect of a notice of motion dated 23rd January 2018 in which the plaintiffs/applicants seek the following orders:
1. That for reasons to be recorded the Honourable court be pleased to certify this application as urgent, and orders that service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance.
2. That the Honourable Court do issue an order demolishing the perimeter fence erected on the suit property subsequent to the court order of the 6th of November, 2017 and further do affirm the orders restraining any further construction until the matter is heard and determined.
3. That consequent to the grant of the Order in (2) above the said demolition be undertaken under the supervision of the Officer Commanding Station Buruburu Police Station for the preservation and protection of Public Order.
4. That further consequent to the orders issued on the 6th of November, 2017 the court do grant such orders as may be necessary and appropriate to safeguard the suit property and prevents its wastage, damage, alienation or disposition pending trial and direct that all orders or preservation as issued herein be appended on the suit property to prevent any further violation of this Honourable Court’s Order
5. That the costs of the application be provided for.
2. This court had granted an order of status quo maintaining the suit property until the dispute herein is heard and determined. This order was given on 6th November 2017. The parties were directed to ensure that the suit is heard so that issues in contention are resolved. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant are claiming the same property. Instead of having the dispute determined the applicants have come to court seeking demolition of a temporary iron sheet which has been erected around the suit property.
3. The applicants contend that they made a random visit to the suit property and found that the respondent had put up a fence round the suit property contrary to the orders of court. The applicants do not say when the fence was put up.
4. In the replying affidavit by the respondent, the respondent denies any contravention of the orders of the court. He states that the temporary fence was meant to protect the property from vandalism and the risk of children falling into the water filled foundation of the building he had started putting up. He states that he stopped further construction following the court order.
5. I have considered the applicants’ application and the opposition to the same by the respondent. This is one of the applications which are brought for the sole purpose of delaying cases. There is no allegation that the respondent is continuing with the construction. Even if the iron sheet fence was put after the court order, its erection is justified. It is meant to safeguard the suit property from vandalism and from any dangers of children falling into the water logged foundation which the respondent had started. The action by the respondent does not amount to breach of the status quo order. I find no merit in the applicants’ application which is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
It is so ordered.
Dated, and signed at Nairobi on this 31st day of July 2018.
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of;-
Mr Kirimi for Mr Makori for the Applicants
None appearance for the Respondent
Court Assistant: Hilda
B.M.EBOSO
JUDGE
31/7/2018