[2018] KEELC 747 (KLR)
The court found that the access road had been in use by the defendants prior to the suit and that the plaintiff's unilateral closure of the road amounted to a premature resolution of the dispute before the court had determined the status of the road. The court held that reopening the road and allowing its use by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 747 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dickson Ombiro; Defendant: The Trusties of Association of Jehovas Witness in East African; Defendant: William Chebet
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 131 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed; access road to be reopened pending determination of the suit.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Access Rights, Injunctions, 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
Dickson Ombiro
Plaintiff
The Trusties of Association of Jehovas Witness in East African
Defendant
William Chebet
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the access road to the 2nd defendant's land should be reopened pending the determination of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff's unilateral closure of the road prejudices the defendants before the court's final decision.
- 3 Whether maintaining the status quo is appropriate in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the access road had been in use by the defendants prior to the suit and that the plaintiff's unilateral closure of the road amounted to a premature resolution of the dispute before the court had determined the status of the road. The court held that reopening the road and allowing its use by the defendants would maintain the status quo and prevent prejudice to either party while the main suit is pending. The court saw no substantial prejudice to the plaintiff if the road was reopened, and noted that any future prejudice could be addressed by further application to the court. Accordingly, the court granted the application to reopen the road, with the duty of reopening...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; access road to be reopened pending determination of the suit.
Orders
- The application dated 16/10/2018 is granted in terms of prayers (c) and (d).
- The plaintiff shall reopen the access road connecting to the 2nd defendant's land forthwith.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 131 OF 2015
DICKSON OMBIRO.............................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
THE TRUSTIES OF ASSOCIATION OF JEHOVAS WITNESS IN
EAST AFRICAN..........................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
WILLIAM CHEBET......................2ND DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
1. The plaintiff came before this court and vide an application dated 16/10/2018 seeking an order that pending the hearing and determination of this suit an order do issue that the access road connecting to the 2nd defendant’s Land Title Waitaluk/Mabonde Block 13 /Bikeke/1100 be opened forthwith.
2. The plaintiff is said to have blocked the road illegally yet the road exists on the map and the 2nd defendant has since been illegally prevented from accessing his said land.
3. It is alleged that by closing the road the plaintiff is interfering with the substratum of the main suit while it is still pending in court.
4. The application is supported by the sworn affidavit of the 2nd defendant in which the grounds above are reiterated.
5. I have examined the photographs filed by the 2nd defendant as annextures to his supporting affidavit. I have also examined the map for the area which is also an exhibit in the same affidavit.
6. Further, I have considered that the main prayer in the plaint seeks an order of permanent injunction against the defendants jointly and severally to restrain them from inter alia accessing their respective parcels through the plaintiff’s private road or doing anything to interfere with the use of the private road that resulted from the subdivision of his Parcel Number 1068.
7. The road has been in use by the defendants before the suit. The suit was brought for the purpose of restraining the defendants from using it. This court has not pronounced itself on the status of the road in question.
8. I agree with the submission of the 2nd defendant that as long as the decision of this court has not been issued on the status of the said road, the action of the plaintiff seems to conclude the matter unilaterally.
9. In this court’s view, allowing the defendants to use the road will maintain the status quo as the parties await the final decision of the court. I see no prejudice that the plaintiff would suffer if the orders sought were allowed. Even if he were to suffer any prejudice from the defendants’ use of the road in future he is at liberty to apply for a suitable remedy to this court.
10. I find that the application dated 16/10/2018 has merits and I grant it in terms of prayers (c)and(d)thereof. The duty of reopening the road shall be incumbent on the plaintiff.
11. The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 22nd day of November, 2018.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
22/11/2018
Coram:
Before - Mwangi Njoroge, Judge
Court Assistant - Picoty
Mr. Teti for applicant
Mr. Khisa holding brief for Samba for respondent
COURT
Ruling read in open court.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
22/11/2018