[2017] KEELC 745 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial regarding land parcel MARAMA/INAYA/1010, as evidenced by the attached title deed. The applicant demonstrated that he would suffer loss not adequately compensable by damages if the injunction was not granted,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 745 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George Namawa Angaya; Respondent: Enock George Mukabana
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 355 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Ownership Disputes, Land Title, Irreparable Harm
- 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 Namawa Angaya
Applicant
Enock George Mukabana
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial.
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial regarding land parcel MARAMA/INAYA/1010, as evidenced by the attached title deed. The applicant demonstrated that he would suffer loss not adequately compensable by damages if the injunction was not granted, given the ongoing interference by the respondent. The respondent, having his own parcel and no right to interfere with the applicant's land, failed to oppose the application. Applying the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant and granted the interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from...
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted
Orders
- Pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the respondent, his agents, servants, proxies and any other person claiming through him are restrained by an order of injunction from interfering, working, developing and/or ploughing land parcels Nos. MARAMA/INAYA/1010 and MARAMA/INAYA/984.
- Costs of this application to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA
ELC NO. 355 OF 2017
GEORGE NAMAWA ANGAYA ::::::::::::::::::PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
ENOCK GEORGE MUKABANA ::::::::::: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
This application is dated 3rd October 2017 and is brought under order 40 Rule 1, 2 Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following orders;
1. THAT the present application is urgent and ought to be heard exparte in the 1st instance.
2. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application the respondent, his agents, servants, proxies and or any other person claiming through him be restrained by an order of injunction from interfering, working, developing and or ploughing land parcels Nos. MARAMA/INAYA/1010 and MARAMA/INAYA/984.
3. THAT upon prayer (2) above being granted the interim order be deemed to remain in force until the hearing and determination of this application.
4. THAT the costs hereof be provided for.
The applicant submitted that, he is the sole registered owner of land parcels Nos. MARAMA/INAYA/1010 and MARAMA/INAYA/984. (Annexed and marked “GN-1a & b” are copies of land title deeds). The respondent has adamantly continued working, interfering with land parcels No. MARAMA/INAYA/1010 and MARAMA/INAYA/984. This is the only investment he has and he stands to suffer irreparable loss. Efforts by the local administration to resolve the stalemate have been futile. The respondent is ploughing and is in the process of developing and or extending the kiosk erected on his land parcel without his consent and or knowledge. That it is in the best interest of justice that the orders sought be granted. The respondent shall not be prejudiced in any away and that peace and tranquility should be maintained.
This court has considered the application, affidavit, annextures and submissions therein. The respondent was served but failed to attend court or file any grounds in opposition. The application being one that seeks injunctions, has to be considered within the principles set out in the case of GIELLA VS CASSMAN BROWN & CO. LTD 1973 E.A 358 and which are:-
1. The applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success at the trial
2. The applicant must show that unless the order is granted, he will suffer loss which cannot be adequately compensated in damages and,
3. If in doubt, the Court will decide the application on a balance of convenience.
It must also be added that an interlocutory injunction is an equitable relief and the Court may decline to grant it if it can be shown that the applicant’s conduct pertinent to the subject matter of the suit does not meet the approval of a Court of equity.
The grounds of the application are that the applicant is the sole registered owner of land parcels Nos. MARAMA/INAYA/1010 and MARAMA/INAYA/984. The respondent has remained adamant and has continued to develop and interfere with applicant’s parcel of land. The respondent has his own parcel of land which is land parcel No. MARAMA/INAYA/1366 and has no right whatsoever to interfere with land parcels Nos. MARAMA/INAYA/1010 and MARAMA/INAYA/984 which belong to the applicant. The respondent has gone ahead to uproot the beacons erected. On perusal of the annextures I find that the applicant has attached a copy of the title deed of land parcel number MARAMA/INAYA/1010 only. No ownwership of land parcel number MARAMA/INAYA/984 has been establish. I find that the applicant has established a a prima facie case with a probability of success at the trial. The applicant has shown that unless the order is granted, he will suffer loss which cannot be adequately compensated in damages. I find that the application has merit and grant the following orders;
1. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this suit the respondent, his agents, servants, proxies and or any other person claiming through him be restrained by an order of injunction from interfering, working, developing and or ploughing land parcels Nos. MARAMA/INAYA/1010 and MARAMA/INAYA/984.
2. Costs of this application to be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA IN OPEN COURT THIS 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017.
N.A. MATHEKA
JUDGE