[2017] KEELC 3228 (KLR)
The court found that the application by the 4th defendant was essentially a request for review of the orders made on 2.10.2015, as the existence of Kiplombe/Kiplombe Block 2 (Kipsang Suge) 79 was not brought to the court's attention at the time. In the interest of justice and to avoid prejudice to any party, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3228 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ezekiel Kiprop Lagat; Defendant: James Kirwa; Defendant: Cosmas Rotich; Defendant: David Lagat; Defendant: Francis Meres; Defendant: Irene Chelule
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 113 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Interlocutory Application for Injunction; Ruling on Review of Interim Orders
- Outcome
- Status quo ante 2.10.2015 to be maintained until hearing and determination of the suit. Costs in the cause.
- Judges
- A Ombwayo
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Land Possession 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
Ezekiel Kiprop Lagat
Plaintiff
James Kirwa
Defendant
Cosmas Rotich
Defendant
David Lagat
Defendant
Francis Meres
Defendant
Irene Chelule
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Interlocutory Application for Injunction; Ruling on Review of Interim Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 4th defendant is entitled to an injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his possession of the suit land pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the status quo as at 2.10.2015 should be maintained until the hearing and determination of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application by the 4th defendant was essentially a request for review of the orders made on 2.10.2015, as the existence of Kiplombe/Kiplombe Block 2 (Kipsang Suge) 79 was not brought to the court's attention at the time. In the interest of justice and to avoid prejudice to any party, the court held that the status quo as at the time of the previous order should be maintained until the suit is heard and determined. This ensures that neither party alters the state of the land or possession pending the final determination of the dispute.
Court Disposition
Status quo ante 2.10.2015 to be maintained until hearing and determination of the suit. Costs in the cause.
Orders
- The status quo as at 2.10.2015 is to be maintained until hearing and determination of the suit.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
E & L CASE NO. 113 OF 2014
EZEKIEL KIPROP LAGAT..................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMES KIRWA........................................................1ST DEFENDANT
COSMAS ROTICH..................................................2ND DEFENDANT
DAVID LAGAT..........................................................3RD DEFENDANT
FRANCIS MERES....................................................4TH DEFENDANT
IRENE CHELULE.....................................................5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
Francis Meres, the 4th defendant herein has come to court for an injunction restraining the plaintiff whether by himself, servants, agents and or any other person acting on his behalf or under his instructions from entering, cultivating, planting or in any other way, interfering with the 4th defendant’s quiet possession of land known provisionally as Kiplombe/Kiplombe Block 2 (Kipsang Suge) 79 measuring 3. 3 acres and referred to by the plaintiff as parcel No. Kiplombe/Kiplombe Block 2(Kapkeben) 38 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
The application is grounded on facts that the process of survey is now complete and the suit land is now known as Kiplombe/Kiplombe Block 2(Kipsang Suge)79. The initial order did not restrict the defendants from ploughing the land.
I have considered the application and do find that the same appears to be an application for review of the orders made on 2. 10. 2015 as by the time the orders were made, the court was not informed that Kiplombe/Kiplombe Block 2(Kipsang Suge) 79 existed. It is in the interest of justice that the status quo as at the time of the order made on 2. 10. 2015 was issued be maintained. I do order that the status quo ante 2. 10. 2015 be maintained until hearing and determination of the suit. Costs in the cause.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017.
A. OMBWAYO
JUDGE