[2016] KEHC 4658 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 4658 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate exclusive, uninterrupted, and hostile possession of the suit property for the requisite period to establish a prima facie case for adverse possession. There was no credible evidence of their occupation or developments on the land, nor of any real threat of eviction by the respondent. The applicants' documentary evidence was unconvincing and their claims were strongly denied by the respondent. As the applicants did not satisfy the first and second principles for grant of an interlocutory injunction, and the balance of convenience did not favor them, the court declined to grant the temporary injunctive relief sought. The application...

Citation
[2016] KEHC 4658 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Chelule Arap Lasoi; Plaintiff: Waitage Arap Langat; Defendant: Jane Chelangat Salat
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 May 2016
Case Number
Civil Suit 5 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs; matter transferred to Environment and Land Court Nakuru
Judges
CW Meoli
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Interlocutory Injunctions, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Damage, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Interlocutory Injunctions Prima Facie Case Irreparable Damage Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chelule Arap Lasoi

Plaintiff

Waitage Arap Langat

Plaintiff

Jane Chelangat Salat

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case for grant of a temporary injunction based on adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants will suffer irreparable damage if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors granting the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate exclusive, uninterrupted, and hostile possession of the suit property for the requisite period to establish a prima facie case for adverse possession. There was no credible evidence of their occupation or developments on the land, nor of any real threat of eviction by the respondent. The applicants' documentary evidence was unconvincing and their claims were strongly denied by the respondent. As the applicants did not satisfy the first and second principles for grant of an interlocutory injunction, and the balance of convenience did not favor them, the court declined to grant the temporary injunctive relief sought. The application...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs; matter transferred to Environment and Land Court Nakuru

Orders

  • The application for temporary injunction filed on 3rd December, 2015 is dismissed with costs.
  • The matter is removed to the Environment and Land Court registry in Nakuru for disposal.