[2009] KEHC 401 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case with a probability of success based on the sale agreements and evidence of possession. The validity of the underlying sale agreements and the legality of the applicant's possession were matters for trial, but at the interlocutory stage, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 401 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Christopher Murunga Khalakuli; Defendant: Sejero Asiebela alias Sejero Asievera; Defendant: Mathews Kawa Sajero
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 49 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for interlocutory injunction granted.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Possession Disputes, Land Title, Status Quo Orders
- 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
Christopher Murunga Khalakuli
Plaintiff
Sejero Asiebela alias Sejero Asievera
Defendant
Mathews Kawa Sajero
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the applicant is in actual possession of the suit property and entitled to protection pending trial.
- 3 Whether the sale agreements relied upon by the applicant confer any enforceable rights against the registered owner.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case with a probability of success based on the sale agreements and evidence of possession. The validity of the underlying sale agreements and the legality of the applicant's possession were matters for trial, but at the interlocutory stage, the applicant's evidence of long-term possession and fencing of the property justified the preservation of the status quo. The court declined to expunge the respondents' affidavit, finding it procedurally proper. The balance of convenience required that injunctive and prohibitory orders be granted to prevent possible dispossession or alienation of the suit property before the substantive...
Court Disposition
Application for interlocutory injunction granted.
Orders
- Injunctive orders granted as prayed in prayers 1 and 2 of the application dated 11th September, 2008.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT KAKAMEGA
Civil Case 49 of 2008
CHRISTOPHER MURUNGA KHALAKULI ………. PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
SEJERO ASIEBELA alias
SEJERO ASIEVERA ………………… 1ST DEFENDANT
MATHEWS KAWA SAJERO ……… 2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The applicant filed his application dated 17th September, 2008 seeking injunctive orders against the respondents pending the hearing and final determination of the suit. He is also seeking prohibition against the suit property, Plot No. KAKAMEGA/ILEHO/565. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit sworn on 11th September 2008.
Mr. Mukavale, counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in actual possession of the suit property and has fenced it together with his other property. He has used the property for over 12 years. The property is registered in the names of the 2nd respondent. The respondents have been sending prospective buyers to the property and this has made the applicant to be apprehensive.
Mr. Atulo, counsel for the respondents opposed the application. The 2nd respondent is the registered owner having been given the land by the 1st respondent as a gift on 17th October, 2005. The person who purportedly sold the land to the applicant was not owner of the land and was a trespasser. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant is in actual possession. He relied on the affidavit of the 1st respondent sworn on 10th March 2009. Counsel submitted that the applicant has not established a prima facie case as required by the law for an injunction to be granted. He relied on the case of KENYA HOTELS LTD. –VS- KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. 2004 1 KLR 80. There is no proof that the applicant has a house on the property or that he is in possession. If he is in possession then it was through forceful entry which is illegal.
In his supporting affidavit the applicant contends that he bought the land from one Ernest Muruli Shichane in 1989. He has exhibited a sale agreement dated 1st December, 1989. He contends that the said Ernest Muruli Shichane had bought the land from the 1st respondent in 1975 and has exhibited a sale agreement dated 15th March, 1975. In that sale agreement the seller is Segero Asievela and the buyer is Ernest Namunyu. The agreed consideration is KShs.11,000/=. The plot No. is described as Plot 565.
The applicant contends that Ernest Namunyu took possession of the land and used it until 1989 when he sold the land to the applicant. He avers that since 1989 he has been in possession of the land and has used the same peacefully to the exclusion of the respondents.
Although the applicant urged the court to expunge certain paragraphs in the 1st respondent’s replying affidavit. I do not see any good reason for doing that. Although some paragraphs are not in the first name as required, it can be deduced from the entire affidavit that it contains the averments of the deponent. The applicant further contends that the affidavit is scandalous and oppressive. I do find that the affidavit is proper and the same or the alleged scandalous paragraphs shall not be expunged.
In his replying affidavit, the 1st respondent denies selling the suit land to one Ernest Namunyu. The 1st respondent contends that the 2nd respondent is the one in occupation.
From the submissions and the documents annexed to the applicant’s affidavit, I am satisfied that the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success. The validity of the sale agreement between the first respondent and the said Ernest Namunyu shall be determined during the hearing. The applicant contends that he has fenced the plot but the respondents are stating that they are in actual possession. If that was to be the case then the only issue would be to maintain the status quo with each party utilizing the plot he is occupying. However, counsel for the respondent contends that the applicant’s entry was forceful and therefore illegal. Whether this is the position will be determined during the hearing.
In the end I do grant the application dated 11th September, 2008 as prayed in prayers 1 and 2 thereof. Each party shall meet his costs.
Delivered, Dated and Signed at Kakamega this 12th day of November, 2009
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
J U D G E