[2021] KEELC 3220 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3220 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the suit land, had established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. The absence of a replying affidavit from the defendants meant that the plaintiff's allegations remained uncontroverted. The court further held that the destruction of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 3220 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Copana Limited; Defendant: Kisumu City Board; Defendant: County Government of Kisumu; Defendant: Raol Investment
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 10 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
interlocutory injunction granted
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Damage
Source Language
en
Land and Property Injunctive Relief Prima Facie Case Irreparable Damage

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Copana Limited

Plaintiff

Kisumu City Board

Defendant

County Government of Kisumu

Defendant

Raol Investment

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success to warrant the grant of interlocutory injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable damage if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the suit land, had established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. The absence of a replying affidavit from the defendants meant that the plaintiff's allegations remained uncontroverted. The court further held that the destruction of structures on the suit land would result in irreparable damage to the plaintiff, which could not be adequately compensated by damages. Consequently, the court granted the interlocutory injunction as sought in prayers 4 and 5 of the notice of motion dated 8/2/2021, pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.

Court Disposition

interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • Prayers 4 and 5 of the notice of motion dated 8/2/2021 are granted, restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
  • Costs in the cause.