[2012] KEHC 632 (KLR)
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicant did not respond to the respondents' challenge regarding the authenticity of his title deed, nor did he provide a satisfactory explanation of how he acquired the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 632 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Cleophas Kipkoech Mutai; Defendant: Salina Chepkurui; Defendant: Kiptarus K. Arap Bett
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 60 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MJA Emukule
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Title Disputes, Settlement Schemes
- 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
Cleophas Kipkoech Mutai
Plaintiff
Salina Chepkurui
Defendant
Kiptarus K. Arap Bett
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with land Title Number NAKURU/BARAGET SETTLEMENT SCHEME/1615.
- 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
- 3 Whether the applicant's title deed is valid or a forgery.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicant did not respond to the respondents' challenge regarding the authenticity of his title deed, nor did he provide a satisfactory explanation of how he acquired the title. The respondents, on the other hand, demonstrated that they were allotees of the land under a government settlement scheme and were permitted to settle by government officials. The applicant's reliance on unauthenticated correspondence was insufficient. Procedurally, the applicant sought a permanent injunction in pleadings but a temporary injunction in the motion, contrary...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The applicant's Notice of Motion dated and filed on 1st March 2012 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nakuru
Civil Suit 60 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-autospace:ideograph-other; font-size:12. 0pt;"Liberation Serif","serif";} </style> <![endif]
CLEOPHAS KIPKOECH MUTAI.............................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
SALINA CHEPKURUI...............................................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
KIPTARUS K. ARAP BETT...................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
In his Notice of Motion dated and filed on 1st March 2012, the Plaintiff/Applicant seeks an order of injunction to restrain the Defendants/Respondents from ploughing, digging, cutting trees, constructing any structures or in any other manner interfering with or wasting land Title Number NAKURU/BARAGET SETTLEMENT SCHEME/1615 until hearing and determination of this suit.
The Notice of Motion was based upon the grounds on the face thereof, and the Applicant's Supporting Affidavit sworn on the 1st March 2012. The Applicant's case is that he is the registered proprietor of the land, and that the Defendants/Respondents are trespassers on the land, and that unless they are restrained, he is likely to suffer irreparable loss for which the Defendants would be unable to compensate him.
On their part, the Defendant/Respondents say in the Replying Affidavit of Salina Chepkurui, the 1st Defendant/Respondent sworn and filed on 22nd March 2012, and her Further Affidavit sworn and filed on 16th April 2012, that the suit land has not yet been demarcated and that the Applicant's Title Deed, like many others floating in the area are fake or forged titles. Thus Defendant/Respondents contends that the suit land is allocated jointly to her and her fellow Defendant, the 2nd Defendant.
From the Further Affidavit in particular, the Defendants are persons who have been settled on the Baraget Extension Settlement Scheme and that the areas were demarcated by Government into three-acre parcels for a total of 318 parcels. The squatters including the Respondent were permitted by the area Government officials to settle on the respective alloted parcels, pending the issue of title.Under this arrangement the Respondents are allotees of Plot 1615. They do not know how the plaintiff came by the Title Deed to the Plot.
Strangely, the Applicant has not deemed it fit to respond to the 1st Defendant's Replying Affidavit or Further Affidavit. In other words, apart from having a Title Deed to the plot, the plaintiff has not found it fit to respond to the Defendant's contentions. In the result, on the facts, there is no material to support the Applicant's quest for an interlocutory injunction.
On procedural law, the Applicant sought a permanent injunction against the Respondents. However in his Notice of Motion, he sought a temporary injunction. A party is forbidden under Order 2 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules from departing from his pleadings unless first amended.The Notice of Motion is therefore incompetent and does not lie.
On the law and precedent, the Applicant has not established a prima facie case with a probability of success. He has been challenged that his title may be a forgery. He has not not found it fit to dispel that challenge with an explanation as to how he got the title. It is not enough to rely on unauthenticated correspondence from Government officials that they have examined the plaintiff's documents and found them in order – without clearly indicating what the documents are.Without a proper and satisfactory explanation the balance would be with the Defendants.
In the circumstances therefore, I would conclude that the Applicant has not established a prima facie case with a probability of success, and the balance lies with the Defendants.
I therefore dismiss with costs the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated and filed on 1st March 2012.
There shall be orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 6th day of December, 2012
M.J. ANYARA EMUKULE
JUDGE