[2009] KEHC 533 (KLR)
The court found that both the plaintiffs and the defendants had established competing interests and prima facie cases regarding the ownership of the suit properties. Given this, it was not appropriate to consider damages at this stage. The court determined that the balance of convenience required preservation of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 533 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: George Kamau Njugunga; Plaintiff: Stephen Gathecha Mbugua; Defendant: Florence Wairimu Mbugua; Defendant: Peter Chege Kiarie; Defendant: Grace Wanjiku Mbugua; Defendant: Sylvia Murugi Mbugua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 558 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Environmental and Land Case / Interlocutory Injunction Application Ruling
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunction granted in terms of mutual restraint.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Administration of Estates
- 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
George Kamau Njugunga
Plaintiff
Stephen Gathecha Mbugua
Plaintiff
Florence Wairimu Mbugua
Defendant
Peter Chege Kiarie
Defendant
Grace Wanjiku Mbugua
Defendant
Sylvia Murugi Mbugua
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environmental and Land Case / Interlocutory Injunction Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit properties pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether both parties have established a prima facie case with respect to ownership of the disputed properties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both the plaintiffs and the defendants had established competing interests and prima facie cases regarding the ownership of the suit properties. Given this, it was not appropriate to consider damages at this stage. The court determined that the balance of convenience required preservation of the properties pending the hearing and final determination of the suit. Consequently, both parties were restrained from interfering with the properties to the prejudice of the other until the matter is fully heard and determined.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunction granted in terms of mutual restraint.
Orders
- Both parties are restrained from interfering with the suit properties to the prejudice of the other pending hearing and determination of the case.
- Parties to comply with pre-trial steps for expeditious disposal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Environmental & Land Case 558 of 2008
GEORGE KAMAU NJUGUNGA ……………….…...….. 1ST PLAINTIFF
STEPHEN GATHECHA MBUGUA ……………….……. 2ND PLAINTIFF
VS.
FLORENCEWAIRIMU MBUGUA
PETER CHEGE KIARIE
GRACE WANJIKU MBUGUA
SYLVIA MURUGI MBUGUA .………..………….…….…. DEFENDANTS
RULING
The plaintiffs have sued the defendants jointly and severally as administrators and personal representatives of the late Joseph Kiarie Mbugua in respect of parcels of land set out in the plaint herein. Alongside the plaint, they filed an application for an injunction to restrain the defendants from claiming any right or title through them or trespassing, occupying, constructing, developing or interfering with the plaintiffs’ ownership, occupation and use of properties known as LR. No. Nairobi/Block 119/574 and 575.
The application is opposed by the defendants who have also filed replying affidavits alongside their defence claiming ownership of the disputed property. What is clear from the pleadings and the affidavits herein together with their annextures is that both parties have competing interests in respect of the suit property.
I have therefore had to balance several facts relating to the granting of an order of injunction as sought by the plaintiffs. It would appear that both parties have a claim or put the other way a prima facie case that is capable of withstanding the principles of law. In that case, it would not be appropriate for me to consider the issue of damages and I believe the best way is to accommodate the principle of balance of convenience such that the suit property or properties are preserved pending the hearing and final determination of the issues herein.
In that case therefore, the appropriate order in this case is that, both parties shall be restrained from interfering with the property/properties in question to the prejudice of the other. I note that the defence has been filed, and therefore to facilitate expeditious disposal of the case, parties would have to comply with the pre-trial steps so that this matter can be listed for hearing.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 24th day of November, 2009.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE