[2016] KEHC 6741 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 6741 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, as they demonstrated ownership of the land by customary law tenure and ongoing interference by the defendants. The defendants' repeated failure to file submissions, despite being granted extensions, left...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 6741 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Bernard Njeru Kabunga; Plaintiff: Zakayo Kithuka Kathiga; Defendant: Justus Kirugi Inchunga; Defendant: Jacob Nthiga Ruaria; Defendant: Judith Kairo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 265 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Customary Land Tenure, Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Customary Land Tenure Interlocutory Injunctions Land Ownership Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Njeru Kabunga

Plaintiff

Zakayo Kithuka Kathiga

Plaintiff

Justus Kirugi Inchunga

Defendant

Jacob Nthiga Ruaria

Defendant

Judith Kairo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from entering, cultivating, or planting on the disputed land pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' failure to file submissions as ordered by the court affects the outcome of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, as they demonstrated ownership of the land by customary law tenure and ongoing interference by the defendants. The defendants' repeated failure to file submissions, despite being granted extensions, left the plaintiffs' application unopposed. The interlocutory injunction previously granted by consent had served the parties well, and there was no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application and granted the temporary injunction as sought in prayer C, restraining the defendants from entering, cultivating, or planting on the disputed land pending...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • A temporary order of injunction is issued restraining the defendants, their agents, assignees, or persons acting on their behalf from entering, cultivating, or planting on the plaintiffs' land parcel measuring approximately 80 acres pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.