[2020] KEELC 3845 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3845 (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 for over twelve years. The risk that the subject land could be dealt with to the detriment of the plaintiffs' claim...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3845 (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 / Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order Pending Hearing
Outcome
Interim inhibition orders extended; application to be heard interpartes.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Inhibition Orders, Land Registration, Limitation of Actions
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Inhibition Orders Land Registration Limitation of Actions

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Wanja Njoka

Plaintiff

Dorothy Kagendo Muriuki

Plaintiff

John Njagi Dan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order Pending Hearing

  1. 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 the hearing and determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession over a portion of the suit land justifies preservation of the property through an 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 for over twelve years. The risk that the subject land could be dealt with to the detriment of the plaintiffs' claim justified the extension of interim inhibition orders pending the interpartes hearing. The court exercised its discretion to maintain the status quo to prevent the suit from being rendered nugatory.

Court Disposition

Interim inhibition orders extended; application to be heard interpartes.

Orders

  • Defendant granted 30 days to obtain the services of an advocate.
  • Interim orders granted on 18th December, 2019 extended in terms of section 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act pending hearing and determination of this application.