[2016] KEHC 5005 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 5005 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs, as registered proprietors of the suit land, had established a prima facie case with a probability of success. The 1st defendant had not provided any justification for his actions or entitlement to the land. The absence of a response from the defendants left the plaintiffs'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 5005 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: George Kibiru Muchai; Applicant: Loise Wanjiru Njoroge; Respondent: John Kinyanjui aka Ikere; Respondent: Land Registrar Nakuru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 81 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
application for injunction allowed
Judges
MA Silau
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Trespass, Ownership Disputes, Registration of Title
Source Language
en
Land and Property Injunctions Trespass Ownership Disputes Registration of Title

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Kibiru Muchai

Applicant

Loise Wanjiru Njoroge

Applicant

John Kinyanjui aka Ikere

Respondent

Land Registrar Nakuru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to exclusive possession of the suit land pending determination of the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants should be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' occupation and registration of the suit land.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs, as registered proprietors of the suit land, had established a prima facie case with a probability of success. The 1st defendant had not provided any justification for his actions or entitlement to the land. The absence of a response from the defendants left the plaintiffs' evidence uncontroverted. The court held that unless restrained, the 1st defendant would continue to interfere with the plaintiffs' quiet possession, and thus, an interlocutory injunction was warranted to preserve the status quo pending determination of the suit. The court further ordered the 2nd defendant not to register any subdivision of the suit land without the plaintiffs'...

Court Disposition

application for injunction allowed

Orders

  • The 1st defendant is ordered to keep away from the suit land and not to interfere with the plaintiffs' occupation until determination of the suit.
  • The 2nd defendant is ordered not to register any subdivision of the suit land unless with the authority of the plaintiffs.