[2020] KEELC 1338 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case for the preservation of the suit property by inhibition, given their claim of adverse possession and continuous occupation of the land for over twelve years. The defendant, being the registered owner, did not oppose the application and consented...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 1338 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Catherine Wanja Njoka; Plaintiff: Dorothy Kagendo Muriuki; Defendant: John Njagi Dan
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 24 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order
- Outcome
- Application for inhibition order allowed by consent; costs in the cause.
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Inhibition Orders, Limitation of Actions, Land Registration, Interlocutory Injunctions
- 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
Catherine Wanja Njoka
Plaintiff
Dorothy Kagendo Muriuki
Plaintiff
John Njagi Dan
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for the grant of an inhibition order over L.R. No. Karingani/Ndagani/91 pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession justifies preservation of the suit property through inhibition.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the inhibition order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case for the preservation of the suit property by inhibition, given their claim of adverse possession and continuous occupation of the land for over twelve years. The defendant, being the registered owner, did not oppose the application and consented to its allowance. The court determined that it was just and equitable to grant the inhibition order to prevent any dealings with the land that could prejudice the plaintiffs' claim, pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The court further directed that the defendant's Preliminary Objection be canvassed first, with timelines for the filing of submissions by both...
Court Disposition
Application for inhibition order allowed by consent; costs in the cause.
Orders
- An order of inhibition is issued restraining the registration of dealings in respect of L.R. No. Karingani/Ndagani/91 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- Costs of the application to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO. 24 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF SECTON 28(H) OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT NO. 3 OF 2012
AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 37 RULE 7 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2010
AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 38 OF THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT
CATHERINE WANJA NJOKA.................1ST PLAINTIFF
DOROTHY KAGENDO MURIUKI........2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JOHN NJAGI DAN....................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This application is dated 17th December, 2019 and seeks orders:
1. That this application be certified urgent.
2. That pending the interpartes hearing of this application an order of inhibition do issue restraining the registration of dealings in respect of L.R. No. Karingani/Ndagani/91.
3. That pending the hearing and determination of this application and the main suit an order of inhibition do issue restraining the registration of dealings in respect of L.R. No. Karingani/Ndagani/91.
4. That costs of this application be in the cause.
2. The application has the following grounds:
1. That the defendant is the registered owner of the suit lands.
2. That the plaintiffs have continuously occupied a portion measuring approximately two (2) acres in the suit land for a period exceeding twelve (12) years.
3. That the plaintiffs lay claim to ownership of a portion measuring two (2) acres from the suit land predicated on the doctrine of adverse possession.
4. That in order to preserve the suit property prior to the hearing of the plaintiffs claim it is necessary that an order of inhibition be issued.
3. When the application was slated for interpartes hearing on 23. 9.2020, the parties consented to have the application allowed so that they could, without delay, canvass a Preliminary Objection against the entire suit filed by the defendant.
4. Consequently, the following orders are issued:
a. The application is allowed with costs to be in the cause.
b. The Preliminary Objection filed by the defendant and dated 2nd June, 2020 will be canvassed first with the proponent filing his submissions within the next 7 days and the plaintiffs doing so within 7 days after receipt of the proponents written submissions.
c. Parties will come to court to confirm filing of submissions on 12. 10. 2020.
Delivered in open Court at Chuka this 23rd day of September, 2020 before:
CA: Ndegwa
Mark Muriithi for the plaintiffs
Muthomi Gitari for the defendant
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE