[2010] KEHC 3653 (KLR)
The court found that both the plaintiff and defendants have competing interests in the suit property, which is subject to unresolved succession proceedings. Although the plaintiff holds a disputed title, the defendants' occupation is linked to their claim as beneficiaries of the estate. To prevent prejudice to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3653 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Beth Wanja Njoroge; Defendant: Simon Mwangi Njoroge; Defendant: Wanjiru Njoroge
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 190 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed; preservation order granted.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Trespass, Ownership Dispute, Succession Proceedings
- 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
Beth Wanja Njoroge
Applicant
Simon Mwangi Njoroge
Defendant
Wanjiru Njoroge
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of an injunction.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff stands to suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours preservation of the suit property pending determination of the main suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both the plaintiff and defendants have competing interests in the suit property, which is subject to unresolved succession proceedings. Although the plaintiff holds a disputed title, the defendants' occupation is linked to their claim as beneficiaries of the estate. To prevent prejudice to either party and preserve the subject matter, the court granted an order restraining both sides from interfering with the property to the detriment of the other until the case is heard and determined. The court applied the principles for granting interlocutory injunctions, emphasizing the need to maintain the status quo in light of the ongoing succession dispute and the balance of...
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed; preservation order granted.
Orders
- Both the defendants and the plaintiff/applicant are restrained from interfering with the suit property to the detriment of one another until the case is heard and finalized.
- Liberty to apply.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURTOF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ENVIRONMENTAL & LAND CASE 190 OF 2009
BETH WANJA NJOROGE…………….…............….….…….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
SIMON MWANGI NJOROGE ................................... 1ST DEFENDANT
WANJIRU NJOROGE…........................................... 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff broughtthis suit against the defendants claiming that the defendants have entered her property known as LR No.8083/3 yet she is the registered owner thereof. She now claims to be given possession of the suit premises; that the defendants be restrained by way of injunction from trespassing, entering or in any way interfering with the suit premises and also damages.
Alongside the said plaint, she filed an the application by way of Chamber Summons under Orders XXXIX Rules 1,2, and 9 and Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The order sought is the same as that which is claimed in the plaint relating to the subject matter.
The grounds upon which the orders are sought are, among others, that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the said suit premises and that the defendants have wrongfully entered into the said premises and taken possession of the same. Unless restrained, the defendants shall continue trespassing upon the said premises. It is also the plaintiff’s case that, the defendants have started to wrongfully construct permanent structures on the suit premises. Unless the defendants are stopped, the suit premises will be wasted and damaged.
The said application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff/Applicant. In reply thereto, there is an affidavit sworn by Lucy Wanjiru Njoroge who is the second defendant herein. The defendants opposed the application on the grounds that the suit premises do not belong to the plaintiff/applicant but a subject matter in High Court Succession Cause No. 782 of 2009 in respect of the estate of Bedan Njoroge Nduati. It is also the defendants’ case that the subject matter is occupied by several beneficiaries of the estate of the late Nduati and that, if the same is registered in the name of the Plaintiff/Applicant this was fraudulent.
Both learned counsel for the parties have filed written submissions to address the contentious issues herein. These I have read.
At this stage the Plaintiff /Applicant is supposed to show that she has a prima facie case with a probability of success. She is also to show that if this order is not granted in her favour she stands to suffer loss that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages, and if the court is in doubt it shall decide the matter on a balance of convenience.
From the material before me, it is clear that this is a family dispute. There are succession proceedings which have not been completed. It is also clear that there is a title in favour of the plaintiff which however, is disputed by the defendants.
The bottom-line is that there are competing interests by both parties in respect of the suit premises. In such a case I am inclined to address the interests of the parties by preserving the subject matter, and therefore the application by the plaintiff/applicant succeeds to the extent that, the defendants and the plaintiff/applicant in equal measure shall not interfere with the suit property to the detriment of one another.
This order shall subsist until this case is heard and finalized. There shall be liberty to apply. Costs in the cause.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 23rd day of February, 2010.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE