[2012] KEHC 1044 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success, as evidenced by the plot certificate and payment receipts. The defendant did not contest the application or provide any evidence to the contrary. The court accepted the plaintiff's averments of trespass and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1044 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Elias Maina Muthumbi; Defendant: Mahiira Housing Company Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 651 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Interlocutory injunction granted.
- Judges
- REA Ougo
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Trespass to Land, Ownership Disputes
- 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
Elias Maina Muthumbi
Plaintiff
Mahiira Housing Company Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plot No. 796 on L.R. 10901/37.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success, as evidenced by the plot certificate and payment receipts. The defendant did not contest the application or provide any evidence to the contrary. The court accepted the plaintiff's averments of trespass and interference, and determined that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by monetary damages if the injunction was not granted. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff. Applying the principles from Geilla v. Cassman Brown, the court granted the interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo pending determination of the suit.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Interlocutory injunction granted.
Orders
- The defendant/respondent, its agents, associates, servants, and employees are restrained from doing anything adverse to the plaintiff's interest in plot No. 796 on L.R. 10901/37 Kahawa South of Ruiru Town until the suit is heard and determined.
- The officer commanding Ruiru Police Station and Kahawa Police Post to supervise the effecting of this order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Environmental & Land Case 651 of 2012 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][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:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Times New Roman","serif";} </style> <![endif]
ELIAS MAINA MUTHUMBI................................................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
MAHIIRA HOUSING COMPANYLTD............................DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
Before me is a Notice of Motion dated the 1/10/12. The plaintiff/applicant is seeking the following orders that the defendant/respondent, his agents, associates, servants, employers and or doing anything adverse to the plaintiff's interest namely plot No. 796 on L.R No. 1090/37 south of Ruiru Town title No. 796 on L.R. 10901/37 until the suit is heard and determined.
The applicant also seeks that officer commanding Ruiru Police station and Kahawa police post supervise the effecting of this order and that costs provided for. The application is grounded on ground (a) to (f) which are stated on the face of the application.
The defendant's company director Mr. Mahiira was served with the application but the defendant failed to attend the hearing of this application neither did it file any papers.
The plaintiff filed a supporting affidavit in support of his application dated 1/10/12. In his affidavit he avers that he is the legal and registered owner of plot no. 796 on L.R.10901/37 Kahawa south of Ruiru Town. To demonstrate this he has attached plot certificate No. 796 issued by Mahiira Housing Company dated 4/2/98 which shows that he owns plot No. 796 on L.R 10901/37 at Kahawa South of Ruiru Town. He avers that he has paid all the required fees to be allowed the said plot. To demonstrate this he has attached receipts payments made to Mahiira Housing Company annnexure 2 & 3. He avers that defendants has without any colour of right trespassed on the said title and erected building structures on the same, that the defendants, agents have since 1989 without any colour of right have trespassed on his said title. At paragraph 5 to 8 the plaintiff explains the issues he has had with the defendant of trespass, want on destruction, threat to stay and interference with his efforts to develop the plot and thus interfering with his quite enjoyment of the suit property. He explains that he will suffer irreparable damage not capable of being compensated by way of monetary value.
What the applicant has deponed was not controverted by the defendant/respondent. Annexure “EMM1” shows that he is entitled to a portion of the land plot No. 796 on L.R 10901/37. He alleges interference by the defendant’s agents. The plaintiff is entitled to some protection. He has demonstrated that he has a prima facie case with a probability of success. He avers he will suffer irreparable damages. So far from what is deponed the balance of convenience tilts in his favour. He has shown that his case falls within the principles of the case of Geilla vs. Cassman Brown 1973 E. A.
I find merit in the application and grant the applicant prayer 3 that the defendant/respondent its agents, associates, servants employees shall not do anything adverse to the plaintiff's interest in namely plot no. 796 L.R 10901/37 Kahawa South of Ruiru Town until the suit is heard and determined. Prayer No. 4 is granted. Costs shall be in the cause
Dated , signed and delivered 26th day of October 2012
R. OUGO
JUDGE
In the Presence of:-
…………………………………………..For the plaintiff
…………………………………………… For the Defendant
…………………………………………… Court Clerk