[2014] KEHC 2494 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant established grounds for an inhibition order to preserve the suit property, he admitted that the defendant had merged his land with the applicant's to create parcel No. 264/Marimanti, indicating joint or disputed ownership. Granting an injunction would effectively restrain...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2494 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Gaichu Muthengi Ndungutu; Respondent: Nyungu Kaibu Kinanga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 84 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition and Injunction
- Outcome
- Application partly allowed.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Inhibition Orders, Temporary Injunctions, Land Ownership 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
Gaichu Muthengi Ndungutu
Applicant
Nyungu Kaibu Kinanga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition and Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of inhibition over parcel No. 264/Marimanti pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with parcel No. 264/Marimanti.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant established grounds for an inhibition order to preserve the suit property, he admitted that the defendant had merged his land with the applicant's to create parcel No. 264/Marimanti, indicating joint or disputed ownership. Granting an injunction would effectively restrain the defendant from land he partly owns, which the applicant himself acknowledged. Therefore, the court granted the inhibition order to prevent dealings with the land but declined to grant or confirm the temporary injunction sought by the applicant. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.
Court Disposition
Application partly allowed.
Orders
- Prayer 2 for inhibition is granted.
- Prayer for temporary injunction is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
E & L CASE NO. 84 OF 2014
GAICHU MUTHENGI NDUNGUTU....................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
NYUNGU KAIBU KINANGA........................................DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This application is dated 27. 5.2014 and seeks orders:
That this application be certified as extremely urgent and service of the same be dispensed with at the first instance.
That the honourable court be pleased to issue an order of inhibition on land parcel No. 264/Marimanti until further orders of the court.
That the honourable court be pleased to issue an order of temporary injunction against the Defendant restraining them by themselves, their servants, agents, employees or anyone acting on their behest from selling/trespassing/interfering with parcel No. 264/Marimanti pending the hearing and termination of this application.
That the honourable court be pleased to issue an order of temporary injunction against the Defendants restraining them by themselves, the servants, agents, employees or anyone acting on their behest from selling/trespassing/interfering with parcel No.264/Marimanti pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
Costs and interest of the application be provided for.
It is supported by the following grounds:
(a) THAT the Defendant usurped the parcel of land belonging to the Plaintiff after having hoodwinked him that he would only cultivate on it as he scouted for his to buy, only to merge it with his (the Defendant) parcel that adjoined the one he had borrowed and both parcelsregistered as parcel No.264/Marimanti.
(b) THAT the plaintiff/Applicant has suffered/will suffer irreparably if the said Defendant/Respondent is not stopped from alienating/selling the suit land.
Prayer 1 is spent. Prayer 2 was granted on interim basis on 29. 5.2014 pending hearing of this application.
There is an affidavit of service filed in the court's file. Despite service the defendant has failed to present himself in court. He has not opposed the application. This notwithstanding, the plaintiff/Applicant admits in his grounds in support of his application that the defendant had merged his land (plaintiff's) with his to create parcel No.264 Marimanti. I, therefore, find it difficult to grant prayer 2 in the application as it will have the effect of restraining the defendant from land that the applicant admits he partly owns.
In the circumstances,
1. I grant prayer 2 for inhibition
2. I decline to grant prayer 2 or to confirm it as prayer 3
3. Costs shall be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Meru this 14th day of July, 2014 in the presence of
Cc. Lilian
Otieno C for Plaintiff/Applicant
Defendant/Respondent Absent
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE