[2017] KEELC 3059 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3059 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any new evidence, error, or sufficient reason to warrant review of the previous ruling denying a temporary injunction. There was no evidence that the suit property was under any form of jeopardy since the initial ruling, and the review application itself had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3059 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Embakasi Housing Company Ltd; Defendant: The Chief Registrar Ministry of Lands
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 482 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
MM Gitumbi
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Review of Orders, Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Interlocutory Injunctions Review of Orders Ownership Disputes

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

Embakasi Housing Company Ltd

Plaintiff

The Chief Registrar Ministry of Lands

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient grounds for review of the court's ruling denying a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Whether there is any evidence of jeopardy to the suit property warranting review of the previous order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any new evidence, error, or sufficient reason to warrant review of the previous ruling denying a temporary injunction. There was no evidence that the suit property was under any form of jeopardy since the initial ruling, and the review application itself had been pending for over two years without any adverse developments. The court emphasized that the plaintiff should focus on setting the suit down for hearing to resolve the substantive ownership dispute, rather than seeking interlocutory relief without basis. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 27/10/14 is dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.