[2016] KEELC 1274 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 1274 (KLR)

The court found that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the grant of interlocutory injunctive orders restraining the defendant, as the registered proprietor, from accessing or utilizing his own land. The court emphasized that such orders are only issued in rare and exceptional circumstances, which were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 1274 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Consolata Wanja Eustace; Plaintiff: Mary Goret Kirigo Meme; Plaintiff: Jane Rita Gaiti; Plaintiff: David Mworia; Plaintiff: Martin Mwenda Meem; Plaintiff: George Gikunda Meme; Defendant: Meem M'Arimi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 10 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Inhibition
Outcome
application dismissed in part; inhibition order granted
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Trusts in Land, Matrimonial Property, Interlocutory Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Land Ownership Disputes Trusts in Land Matrimonial Property Interlocutory Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consolata Wanja Eustace

Plaintiff

Mary Goret Kirigo Meme

Plaintiff

Jane Rita Gaiti

Plaintiff

David Mworia

Plaintiff

Martin Mwenda Meem

Plaintiff

George Gikunda Meme

Plaintiff

Meem M'Arimi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Inhibition

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs/applicants are entitled to interlocutory injunctive orders restraining the defendant from interfering with their use and occupation of L.R. No. ABOGETA/U-CHURE/494 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether an order of inhibition should issue to restrain the defendant from charging, disposing, selling, or alienating L.R. No. ABOGETA/U-CHURE/494.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the grant of interlocutory injunctive orders restraining the defendant, as the registered proprietor, from accessing or utilizing his own land. The court emphasized that such orders are only issued in rare and exceptional circumstances, which were not established here. However, to preserve the subject matter of the suit and prevent the risk of alienation or disposal of the land pending the hearing and determination of the main suit, the court exercised its discretion under Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act to issue an order of inhibition restraining the defendant from charging, disposing, selling, or alienating L.R....

Court Disposition

application dismissed in part; inhibition order granted

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory injunction is dismissed with costs to be in the cause.
  • An order of inhibition is issued restraining the respondent by himself, servants or agents from charging, disposing, selling or alienating Land Parcel No. ABOGETA/U-CHURE/494 pending hearing and determination of this suit.