[2017] KEELC 3040 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3040 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established sufficient grounds for the grant of an order of inhibition to preserve the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the suit, given the admitted double sale and the risk of further dealings. However, the court declined to grant a temporary injunction...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3040 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Mwendwa Ndiga; Plaintiff: Abishag Kina Mwendwa; Defendant: Kajogo Kathenya; Defendant: Jonathan Kiambi Muketha; Defendant: Kithaka wa Mberia
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 193 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition and Injunction
Outcome
Order of inhibition granted; application for temporary injunction declined; directions for pre-trial conference issued.
Legal Topics
Inhibition Orders, Temporary Injunctions, Fraudulent Transfer of Land, Possession and Occupation, Bona Fide Purchaser, Registration of Land
Source Language
en
Land and Property Inhibition Orders Temporary Injunctions Fraudulent Transfer of Land Possession and Occupation Bona Fide Purchaser Registration of Land

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Mwendwa Ndiga

Plaintiff

Abishag Kina Mwendwa

Plaintiff

Kajogo Kathenya

Defendant

Jonathan Kiambi Muketha

Defendant

Kithaka wa Mberia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition and Injunction

  1. 1 Whether an order of inhibition should issue to prevent dealings with the suit land pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether a temporary injunction should issue to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and occupation of the suit land.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for the grant of interlocutory relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established sufficient grounds for the grant of an order of inhibition to preserve the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the suit, given the admitted double sale and the risk of further dealings. However, the court declined to grant a temporary injunction restraining the registered owners (2nd and 3rd defendants) from accessing the land, reasoning that it would be inappropriate to restrain registered proprietors at this interlocutory stage without hearing their side. The court emphasized the need for the plaintiffs to serve the suit on the 2nd and 3rd defendants so that the matter could proceed on its merits, and directed parties to...

Court Disposition

Order of inhibition granted; application for temporary injunction declined; directions for pre-trial conference issued.

Orders

  • An order of inhibition is issued inhibiting any dealings with land parcel No. MERU SOUTH/KATHWANA/985 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  • Application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession is declined.