[2015] KEHC 3170 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant is the de facto owner of the suit lands, as established by the prior consolidated litigation in Bungoma HCCC No.143 of 2011, which was determined in the applicant's favour. The respondent failed to file substantive opposition or submissions despite being granted leave. On the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3170 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bungoma Teachers Sacco Ltd alias Ngarisha Sacco Ltd; Respondent: Hon. Athanus Wafula Wamunyinyi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 176 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- SN Mukunya
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Ownership Disputes, Land Titles
- 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
Bungoma Teachers Sacco Ltd alias Ngarisha Sacco Ltd
Applicant
Hon. Athanus Wafula Wamunyinyi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit properties.
- 2 Whether the applicant is the lawful owner of the suit parcels of land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant is the de facto owner of the suit lands, as established by the prior consolidated litigation in Bungoma HCCC No.143 of 2011, which was determined in the applicant's favour. The respondent failed to file substantive opposition or submissions despite being granted leave. On the balance of convenience, the applicant was entitled to protection from interference with its property. Accordingly, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from entering, remaining on, or pulling down the perimeter fence on the suit properties.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- A permanent injunction is issued restraining the respondent from forcefully entering, remaining on, or pulling down the perimeter barbed wire fence erected by the applicant on the suit properties.
- The costs of the application shall abide with the judgment of the case.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
LAND & ENVIRONMENT CASE NO.176 OF 2014
BUNGOMA TEACHERS SACCO LTD
ALIAS NGARISHA SACCO LTD…………......….PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
HON. ATHANUS WAFULA WAMUNYINYI….DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicants in this case brought this application under certificate of urgency on 24th of September 2014. They prayed for an order of injunction against the defendant respondent restraining the defendants by himself, his servants and workers and/or authorized agents supporters from forcefully entering into and remaining onto or pulling down perimeter barbed wire fence erected around by the Plaintiffs on parcel Bungoma / Municipality /807 808, 809, 810 and 811 now plots numbers Bungoma Municipality 859-878 altogether 20 plots.
The applicant avers that those plots have been subject to various litigation in Bungoma HCC Nos.143, 144, 145 and 146 of 2011 Between Bungoma County Government and the applicant herein. These suits were consolidated into one in Bungoma HCCC No.143 of 2011. The suit was determined in the applicants favour on 13/05/2014.
When this matter came before the Court on 29/4/2014 the same was certified urgent. On 6/10/2014 the Court gave the respondent time to respond to the application and the applicant was given corresponding leave to file a reply. On 21/10/2014 the respondent filed his grounds of opposition.
On 11/3/2015 I granted the respondent leave to file the replying affidavit within 14 days and also to file his written submissions.
Again on 5/5/2015 I gave respondent leave to file his written submissions none was filed.
This Court A. Omollo J, had struck out Municipal Council of Bungoma’s suit wanting to have the applicants titles cancelled.
It is quite apparent therefore that as at this stage the defacto owners of the suit lands is the applicants.
On the balance of convenience I grant the applicants prayer No.3 of the Notice of Motion dated 24th of September 2014 a permanent injunction shall issue against the respondent in terms prayed in Prayer 3 of the Motion.
The costs of this application shall abide with the judgement of this Case.
Dated at BUNGOMA this10thday ofJune,2015
S. MUKUNYA
JUDGE