[2018] KEELC 3984 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicants did not provide sufficient documentary evidence, such as an agreement for sale or proof of payment, to support their claim of ownership. The vendor, Continental...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3984 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Francis M Kimani & Another; Defendant: Nancy W Munyua & 2 Others
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 300 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to respondents
- Legal Topics
- Ownership Disputes, Injunctive Relief, Land Title Fraud
- 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
Francis M Kimani & Another
Plaintiff
Nancy W Munyua & 2 Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient evidence of ownership of LR No. Nairobi Block 82/1342.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicants did not provide sufficient documentary evidence, such as an agreement for sale or proof of payment, to support their claim of ownership. The vendor, Continental Developers Limited, denied ever transacting with the applicants and supported the first respondent's claim. The land records did not reflect the applicants as owners, and the evidence of possession presented by the applicants was not persuasive. Consequently, the court held that the applicants did not meet the threshold for an injunction and dismissed the application with costs to the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to respondents
Orders
- The applicants' application for injunction is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT OF KENYA
AT MILIMANI
ELC CASE NO. 300 OF 2017
FRANCIS M KIMANI & ANOTHER..............PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
NANCY W MUNYUA & 2 OTHERS............DEFENDANTS
RULING
1. This is a Ruling in respect of a Notice of Motion dated 3rd May 2017, brought by the Plaintiffs/Applicants. The applicants are seeking an injunction restraining the first and second respondents or their agents from transferring, alienating, and or charging LR No. Nairobi Block 82/1342 (suit property) until hearing and determination of this suit.
2. The applicants contend that they bought the suit property from Continental Developers Limited in 1989. The suit property was duly transferred into their names and that they took immediate possession of the same. In the year 2014, the first respondent emerged and started claiming interest in the suit property. She lodged a complaint with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. The applicants were asked to produce their documents of ownership which they did. They contend that the first respondent did not produce her documents; that the matter is still under investigations.
3. The applicants later learnt that the first respondent had obtained a lease over the suit property. Their efforts to carry out a search on the suit property did not yield any positive results in their favour. They now contend that the first and second respondents have colluded to have the suit property in the name of the first respondent and that the Land Register has been tempered with.
4. The first respondent has opposed the applicants’ application based on a replying affidavit sworn on 20th June 2017 and a supplementary affidavit sworn on 12th June 2017. The first respondent has denied all the allegations by the applicants as contained in their supporting affidavit. The first respondent started paying for the suit property which she purchased from Continental Developers Limited in the year 1989. The suit property was then known as plot 758 which later became LR Nairobi Block 82/1342. The suit property was registered in the name of Continental Developers Limited. When she completed paying for the suit property, it was transferred into her name.
5. A search carried out in 2017 shows that she is the registered owner of the suit property. The vendor of the suit property has sworn an affidavit in support of her claim to the suit property. The vendor states through its Director that in the year 2014, they discovered that unscrupulous persons had forged title documents in respect of the suit property with a view to grabbing the same. They wrote a letter to the Lands Office protesting the move. The vendor denied any dealings with the applicants who have never purchased the suit property from the Company.
6. This being an application for injunction, the applicants were expected to demonstrate that they have a prima facie case with probability of success. In other words, they ought to have met the threshold set out in the case of Giella Vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd ( 1973) EA 358.
7. The applicants claim that they purchased the suit property from Continental Developers Limited in 1989. Other than a transfer and certificate of lease, there are no documents such as agreement for sale or evidence of payment for the plot. The applicants did not file any further affidavit to refute the contention by Continental Developers Limited who stated that they never dealt with them at any stage.
8. As at the time, the applicants claim to have purchased the suit property, it is the first respondent who was still paying for the suit property having started doing so in 1986. The applicants have annexed a letter dated 23rd October 1990 addressed to the first respondent which purports to cancel her purchase of the suit property. The documents annexed to the first respondent’s affidavit show that as at the time this letter was being written, she was actively paying for the suit property.
9. The records held in the Lands Office do not reflect the applicants as owners of the suit property. Though the applicants claim that they have been in possession of the suit property since 1989, they have annexed a letter dated 23rd August 2014 in which the Nairobi City County granted them permission to fence the suit property using a barbed wire. The temporary structures they erected on the suit property are newly constructed and could not have been in place for 10 years as they allege in documents in opposition to an application which is related to this one.
10. Based on the documents presented before the Court, I do not find that the applicants have established any prima facie case to warrant issuance of injunction. The applicants’ application is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and delivered at Nairobi on this 21stday of February 2018.
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of :
Mr Tebino for Mr Kibanya for 1st Defendant
Court Assistant: Kevin
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE