[2017] KEELC 2364 (KLR)
The court found that both the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant claimed to have purchased the disputed plot from different persons, neither of whom was shown to be the registered proprietor of the land. In the absence of documentary evidence establishing legal or beneficial ownership by either party, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2364 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Boniface Wambua Kioko; Defendant: Julius Ndeti Kimilu; Defendant: Joseph Muthiani alias Mwongela
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 62 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Status quo order granted; costs in the cause.
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Ownership Dispute, Status Quo Orders
- 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
Boniface Wambua Kioko
Plaintiff
Julius Ndeti Kimilu
Defendant
Joseph Muthiani alias Mwongela
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the parties have demonstrated legal ownership of the disputed plot.
- 3 Whether the status quo should be maintained pending determination of the main suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant claimed to have purchased the disputed plot from different persons, neither of whom was shown to be the registered proprietor of the land. In the absence of documentary evidence establishing legal or beneficial ownership by either party, the court determined that it would be inappropriate to grant exclusive injunctive relief to either side. Instead, the court held that the most appropriate course was to preserve the status quo, preventing any party from alienating, transferring, developing, or utilizing the suit property until the substantive issues of ownership and entitlement could be determined at trial. This approach would...
Court Disposition
Status quo order granted; costs in the cause.
Orders
- The prevailing status quo to be maintained, meaning that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants should alienate, transfer, develop or utilize the suit property in any manner whatsoever until the hearing and determination of the suit.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. SUIT NO. 62 OF 2016
BONIFACE WAMBUA KIOKO....................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JULIUS NDETI KIMILU............................................1ST DEFENDANT
JOSEPH MUTHIANI aliasMWONGELA................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In his Application dated 27th July, 2016, the Plaintiff is seeking for injunctive orders in the following terms:
a) That the defendants whether by themselves or through their servants, agents and/or employees or any other person whomsoever claiming under them be restrained from trespassing into a plot measuring 18ft by 70ft situate at Kiunduani Market or from doing any other prejudicial act thereon pending the hearing and determination of this application and the main suit herein.
b) That the cost of this Application be in the cause.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the isolated plot measuring 18ft by 70ft situated at Kiunduani Market; that the Defendants have trespassed on the said land and started assembling building materials and that the Plaintiff has a prima facie case with chances of success.
3. According to the Plaintiff’s Affidavit, he bought the suit land on 24th September, 2015 from the 1st Defendant; that he was granted vacant possession of the land and that the 2nd Defendant trespassed on the land claiming that the land was his.
4. In response, the 2nd Defendant deponed that by an agreement dated 27th December, 2014, he purchased the disputed plot measuring 20 x 80ft; that he obtained vacant possession of the plot and that he cleared the plot and began developing it.
5. According to the 2nd Defendant he enquired from the Kiunduani Market Committee about the ownership of the suit land and confirmed that it belonged to Shadrack Muli; that he was introduced to the said Shadrack Muli by the 1st Defendant and that the 1st Defendant confirmed to him that he has no interest in the suit land.
6. The Plaintiff’s and the 2nd Defendant’s advocate filed brief submissions which I have considered. I have also considered the filed authorities.
7. Both the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant claim to have bought the suit land.
8. The Plaintiff claims to have brought the suit land from the 1st Defendant while the 2nd Defendant claims that he bought the same property from Shadrack Sila Muli.
9. It would appear that neither the 1st Defendant nor Shadrack Sila Muli were registered as the proprietors of the suit land before they purported to sell it.
10. In the absence of documents to show the legal or beneficial owner of the suit land, the most appropriate order to make at this stage is for the status quo to be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
11. For those reasons, the court makes the following specific orders:
a. The prevailing status quo to be maintained, meaning that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants should alienate, transfer, develop or utilize the suit property in any manner whatsoever until the hearing and determination of the suit.
b. Costs to be in the cause.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE