[2019] KEELC 3308 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, as administrator of the estate of the deceased, had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicant established that she had been in open, continuous, and adverse possession of the suit property since 1992 and that the respondents had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 3308 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Esther Mpandi Muchena (Suing as administrator of the estate of Amos Muchena M’Arimi, deceased); Respondent: Nkando Farmers Cooperative Society Limited; Respondent: Thomas Kinoti
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 12 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Adverse Possession, Quiet Enjoyment, Estate Administration
- 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
Esther Mpandi Muchena (Suing as administrator of the estate of Amos Muchena M’Arimi, deceased)
Applicant
Nkando Farmers Cooperative Society Limited
Respondent
Thomas Kinoti
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interlocutory injunctive orders restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit property pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, as administrator of the estate of the deceased, had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicant established that she had been in open, continuous, and adverse possession of the suit property since 1992 and that the respondents had forcibly entered the property with the intention of subdividing and issuing new titles, which would prejudice the applicant's interests. The application was unopposed, and the court was satisfied that the conditions for granting an injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd were met. Consequently, the court granted the injunctive orders sought, restraining the...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The defendants/respondents, their agents, assigns, servants and any other persons are restrained from fencing, subdividing, alienating, or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff/applicant’s quiet possession and enjoyment of land reference number Timau/timau Block 7/581 (Nkando Farmers) and/or dealing in any manner...
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC SUIT NO. 12 OF 2019
ESTHER MPANDI MUCHENA (Suing as administrator of the estate of
Amos Muchena M’Arimi (deceased)..............................................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
NKANDO FARMERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED...1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
THOMAS KINOTI...........................................................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. In the application dated 28. 3.2019, plaintiff/applicant seeks orders that pending the hearing and determination of this application and the suit, the defendants/respondents, their agents, assigns, servants and any other persons howsoever be restrained from fencing, subdividing, alienating the plaintiff/applicant’s interest illegally or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet possession and enjoyment of land reference number Timau/timau Block 7/581 (Nkando Farmers) and/or dealing in any manner whatsoever with the said piece of land.
2. The grounds in support of the application are that the applicant is the administrator of the estate of Amos Muchina M’Arimi (deceased) who had purchased several shares in the suit property from the 1st defendant. Applicant further avers that she has enjoyed quiet possession of the suit property since 1992 and that such occupation has been open, notorious, continuous and adverse to that of the registered proprietors thereof.
3. The respondents have apparently forcibly entered the suit property with the aim of subdividing the same and issuing new titles to the detriment of the applicant.
4. Applicant has also filed a supporting affidavit where she has reiterated the grounds in support of the application.
5. Service of the application was effected but no response was filed. The application is therfore unopposed.
6. I allow the application on condition that the injunctive orders granted herein shall remain in force for a period of one year ONLY. Costs in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 22ND MAY, 2019 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Kimathi A for plaintiff
Muriera holding brief for Mutunga for respondent
2nd defendant (Thomas Kinoti)
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE