[2016] KEHC 866 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 866 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant and his family were in occupation of the disputed land parcels and that the 1st and 2nd defendants had not responded to the application despite being served, amounting to inordinate delay. The applicant established a prima facie case for the grant of interlocutory injunction and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 866 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ezekiel Miriti (suing on behalf of the estate of M'Ibui M'Lingera M'Muthuiba); Defendant: John Mati and 4 others
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 19 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Fraudulent Transfer of Land, Succession Without Grant
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Land Ownership Disputes Fraudulent Transfer of Land Succession Without Grant

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

Ezekiel Miriti (suing on behalf of the estate of M'Ibui M'Lingera M'Muthuiba)

Applicant

John Mati and 4 others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether inhibition orders should be issued against further dealings in the suit land parcels pending the hearing and determination of the matter.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' delay in responding to the application affects the outcome.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant and his family were in occupation of the disputed land parcels and that the 1st and 2nd defendants had not responded to the application despite being served, amounting to inordinate delay. The applicant established a prima facie case for the grant of interlocutory injunction and inhibition orders to preserve the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The court noted that interim orders had already been granted and, in the absence of opposition, allowed the application and granted the substantive prayers sought for injunctive and inhibition relief. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • An order of injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondents, their servants, assignees or anyone acting at their behest from entering, dealing in whatever manner or interfering with the plaintiff's occupation of land parcel No. Kangeta/Kangeta/7946 and 2627 pending the hearing and determination of this...
  • Inhibition orders issued against any further dealing in land parcel No. Kangeta/Kangeta/7946 and 2627 pending the hearing and determination of this matter or until further orders of the court.