[2000] KEHC 92 (KLR)
The court considered whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success and whether the balance of convenience favored granting a temporary injunction. The plaintiffs demonstrated that the disputed land was marked as a children.s playground in the official City Council plan, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 92 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Benta Ochanda & 2 Others; Defendant: Juma Ibrahim
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 700 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Interlocutory Application (temporary Injunction)
- Outcome
- Temporary injunction granted restraining the defendant from developing the disputed land until the application is heard inter partes.
- Judges
- JK Mulwa
- Legal Topics
- Public Land Allocation, Injunctive Relief, Urban Planning 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
Benta Ochanda & 2 Others
Plaintiff
Juma Ibrahim
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Interlocutory Application (temporary Injunction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant was irregularly allocated the land designated as a children.s playground.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from developing the disputed land.
- 3 Whether the land shown to the court is the same as that referred to in the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court considered whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success and whether the balance of convenience favored granting a temporary injunction. The plaintiffs demonstrated that the disputed land was marked as a children.s playground in the official City Council plan, and that the defendant.s actions in fencing and seeking to develop the land would deprive the community of its intended use. The defendant.s claim of lawful allocation was challenged by the plaintiffs, and the issue of the precise identity of the land was raised during the site visit. Given the public interest in preserving designated open spaces and the potential irreparable harm...
Court Disposition
Temporary injunction granted restraining the defendant from developing the disputed land until the application is heard inter partes.
Orders
- The defendant is restrained from proceeding with any development on the disputed land until the application is heard and determined inter partes.
- Costs of this application to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE 644 OF 1993
BENTA OCHANDA & 2 OTHERS………………………….PLAINTIFF
-VERSUSJUMA
IBRAHIM…………………..………………………..DEFENDANT
The plaintiffs filed a suit on their behalf and those of the residents of Kapiti Estate ‘B’. In their suit they claim that the land marked in the City Council Plan No. 60038 (71/103) located between the Kapiti Road and Zanzibar road was set out as children’s playground. On the 28th April, 2000 the defendant put up a perimeter fence with blocking both entracnes to this land and with the intention of putting up some developments.
According to the defendant’s this land was irregularly allocated to the defendant. The plaintiff applied and were granted a temporary orders restraining the defendant from proceeding with development until the application was heard inter parties.
On 11. 7.2000 at the invitation of the counsels, I visited the land in dispute at the Estate. While there Mr. Githinji for the Defendant raised the point that the land referred to in the application was different from the land now shown to the court. He showed the court the land which
Delivered at Nairobi this 10th day of February, 2000.
KASANGA MULWA
JUDGE