[2020] KEELC 2982 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2982 (KLR)

The court found that the issue of adverse possession was not and could not have been litigated in the prior succession proceedings, as the succession court lacked jurisdiction to determine such claims. The applicant demonstrated that the suit land was at risk of being transferred to third parties, and that refusal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 2982 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Boniface Mutwiri Kungania (Suing as a legal Representative of the estate of M’KUNGANIA M’BAGINE Alias Samuel Kungania, deceased); Respondent: Gladys Kathuni M’Rinkanya (Sued as the Legal Representative of the estate of Raiji s/o Gataaru alias Raiji Gataaru alias M’Raiji Gataru, deceased)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 22 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Orders Pending Hearing and Determination of Suit
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Inhibition Orders, Res Judicata, Succession Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Inhibition Orders Res Judicata Succession 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boniface Mutwiri Kungania (Suing as a legal Representative of the estate of M’KUNGANIA M’BAGINE Alias Samuel Kungania, deceased)

Applicant

Gladys Kathuni M’Rinkanya (Sued as the Legal Representative of the estate of Raiji s/o Gataaru alias Raiji Gataaru alias M’Raiji Gataru, deceased)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Orders Pending Hearing and Determination of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to inhibition orders over the suit land pending determination of the main suit.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is res judicata in light of prior succession proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established an arguable case for adverse possession.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issue of adverse possession was not and could not have been litigated in the prior succession proceedings, as the succession court lacked jurisdiction to determine such claims. The applicant demonstrated that the suit land was at risk of being transferred to third parties, and that refusal to grant inhibition would render the suit nugatory. The court held that it was fair and just to preserve the suit land by granting inhibition orders pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The application was allowed, with costs to abide the outcome of the trial, and the matter was to be heard on a priority basis.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Inhibition orders are granted against L R No. Abogeta/Upper-Chure/517 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the trial.