[2011] KEHC 2666 (KLR)
The court found that both parties presented documents supporting their claims, but the 1st defendant had not produced a completed grant, only evidence that one was being processed. The plaintiff, on the other hand, had an allotment letter and proof of payment of premium, and had been in possession of the property...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2666 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Bernard Mbaluka Ngula; Defendant: Zuhura Njeri Kurai; Defendant: Mugo Njeru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 115 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Interlocutory Injunction Ruling
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Land Allocation Disputes, Ownership 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
Bernard Mbaluka Ngula
Plaintiff
Zuhura Njeri Kurai
Defendant
Mugo Njeru
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Injunction Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm favour the grant of an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both parties presented documents supporting their claims, but the 1st defendant had not produced a completed grant, only evidence that one was being processed. The plaintiff, on the other hand, had an allotment letter and proof of payment of premium, and had been in possession of the property for 12 years with permanent developments. The court held that there was a genuine dispute as to ownership that could only be resolved at trial. Given the risk of substantial loss to the plaintiff if the status quo was not preserved, and the lack of clear title in the 1st defendant's favour, the court found it fair and just to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the...
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted
Orders
- An interlocutory order of injunction is issued restraining the defendants from trespassing, alienating, entering or in any way interfering with LR.No.209/1103 Villa-Franca Nairobi pending hearing and determination of the suit or for 12 months, whichever is earlier.
- The applicant must expedite pre-trial procedures for speedy prosecution of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT (ELC) NO.115 OF 2011
BERNARD MBALUKA NGULA……..................….PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
ZUHURA NJERI KURAI……..............…1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
MUGO NJERU……………............…….2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. Bernard Mbaluka the plaintiff/applicant seeks orders restraining the defendants Zuhura Njeri Kuria and Mugo Njeru from trespassing, alienating, entering or in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s property known as LR.No.209/1103 Villa-Franca Nairobi, (hereinafter referred to as the suit property), pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiff’s suit.
2. The application is anchored on the fact that the applicant was allocated the suit property on 1st July 1998. He took possession of the suit property having paid the required premium. Whilst awaiting to be issued with the certificate of lease, the applicant erected permanent structures on the suit premises which he rented out. To date, the applicant has not been issued with the lease certificate. The applicant has now discovered from Lands Office, that a certificate of lease in respect of the suit property has been issued to the 1st defendant whose agents are threatening to demolish the applicant’s developments which are on the suit property.
3. In response to the application the 1st defendant has exhibited documents showing that the Commissioner of Lands is in the process of preparing a grant in her favour. The 1st defendant has also exhibited receipts for payment of land rent and rates.
4. Having considered the application, the affidavits and the documents exhibited by both parties, I find that the 1st defendant has not exhibited any grant, but has only exhibited a letter showing that a grant is in the process of being prepared. The circumstances under which the grant is being issued to the 1st defendant is not clear. The applicant has also exhibited an allotment letter from the Commissioner of Lands, and a receipt for payment of land premium. It is evident that there is a dispute regarding the ownership of the suit property. This dispute can only be resolved after the plaintiff’s suit is heard and fully determined. In the meantime since the applicant has been on the suit property for the last 12 years and has permanent developments on the suit property the applicant would suffer substantial loss if interim orders are not granted to preserve the status quo.
5. I therefore find it fair and just that an interlocutory order of injunction do issue against the defendants as prayed in prayer (2) of the notice of motion dated 18th March, 2011. The order shall lapse within 12 months from today. The applicant must therefore take all necessary action to facilitate the finalization of the pre-trial procedures with a view to speedy prosecution of the suit.
6. Costs of the application shall be in the suit.
Dated and delivered this 17th day of May, 2011
H. M. OKWENGU
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
MS Muteti for the plaintiff/applicant
Advocate for the defendant/respondent absent
B. Kosgei - Court clerk