[2016] KEELC 886 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 886 (KLR)

The court found that the subject matter and parties in the present suit are the same as those in Malindi ELC No. 2 of 2012, and that the issues raised by the Plaintiffs had already been raised in the Defence in the earlier suit. The court further noted that a consent order to maintain the status quo had already been...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 886 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Bishop Mark Kubai Kariuki; Plaintiff: Bishop J. B. Masinde; Plaintiff: Bishop William K. Tuimising; Plaintiff: Reverend Samuel Gakuo; Plaintiff: Reverend George Mulinde Mwaula; Plaintiff: Reverend Paul Mutunga (suing on behalf of Deliverance Church of Kenya); Defendant: Japhet Noti Charo; Defendant: County Government of Kilifi; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 197 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
application struck out as sub-judice with costs to the 1st Defendant
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Sub Judice, Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Status Quo Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Sub Judice Injunctions Land Ownership Disputes Status Quo Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bishop Mark Kubai Kariuki

Plaintiff

Bishop J. B. Masinde

Plaintiff

Bishop William K. Tuimising

Plaintiff

Reverend Samuel Gakuo

Plaintiff

Reverend George Mulinde Mwaula

Plaintiff

Reverend Paul Mutunga (suing on behalf of Deliverance Church of Kenya)

Plaintiff

Japhet Noti Charo

Defendant

County Government of Kilifi

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications

  1. 1 Whether the current suit is sub-judice Malindi ELC No. 2 of 2012.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against the 1st Defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs' application is superfluous in light of existing status quo orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the subject matter and parties in the present suit are the same as those in Malindi ELC No. 2 of 2012, and that the issues raised by the Plaintiffs had already been raised in the Defence in the earlier suit. The court further noted that a consent order to maintain the status quo had already been entered in the earlier suit, rendering the Plaintiffs' current application unnecessary. Accordingly, the court held that the present suit is sub-judice and that the Plaintiffs should have sought to enforce the existing status quo order rather than file a new application. The Plaintiffs' application was therefore struck out with costs.

Court Disposition

application struck out as sub-judice with costs to the 1st Defendant

Orders

  • The Plaintiffs' application dated 28th October, 2015 is struck out with costs.