[2014] KEHC 253 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had established sufficient grounds for the grant of an inhibition order. The 2nd defendant did not controvert the claim that the suit land was registered jointly in the names of the 1st and 2nd defendants, nor did he provide evidence that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th plaintiffs were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 253 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Gladys Muthoni Ibiiri; Plaintiff: George Kathurima Sikunyi; Plaintiff: Abigael Mwendwa Mwela; Plaintiff: Alizabeth Makandi Mwela; Defendant: Henry Mwela Sikunyi; Defendant: Jimmy Kariuki Busienei
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 158 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition and Status Quo Orders
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed; inhibition and status quo orders granted as prayed in prayer 2.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Inhibition Orders, Status Quo Orders, Land Ownership Disputes, Interlocutory Injunctions
- 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
Gladys Muthoni Ibiiri
Plaintiff
George Kathurima Sikunyi
Plaintiff
Abigael Mwendwa Mwela
Plaintiff
Alizabeth Makandi Mwela
Plaintiff
Henry Mwela Sikunyi
Defendant
Jimmy Kariuki Busienei
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition and Status Quo Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case to warrant an order of inhibition against Land Parcel No. LAIKIPIA/KALALU/52 pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the status quo in terms of occupation and possession should be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had established sufficient grounds for the grant of an inhibition order. The 2nd defendant did not controvert the claim that the suit land was registered jointly in the names of the 1st and 2nd defendants, nor did he provide evidence that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th plaintiffs were witnesses to the sale agreement. The court held that the issues raised required full ventilation at trial, but in the interim, it was necessary to preserve the suit property by granting the inhibition and maintaining the status quo. The balance of convenience favored the preservation of the property pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed; inhibition and status quo orders granted as prayed in prayer 2.
Orders
- An order of inhibition is granted to stop or inhibit any dealings with Land Parcel No. LAIKIPIA/KALALU/52 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- An order for maintenance of status quo in terms of occupation and possession is granted pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL CASE NO. 158 OF 2010
GLADYS MUTHONI IBIIRI.................................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
GEORGE KATHURIMA SIKUNYI.......................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
ABIGAEL MWENDWA MWELA.........................................................3RD PLAINTIFF
ALIZABETH MAKANDI MWELA.......................................................4TH PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HENRY MWELA SIKUNYI...............................................................1ST DEFENDANT
JIMMY KARIUKI BUSIENEI.............................................................2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This application is dated 24th September, 2013 and seeks orders:
THAT due to the urgency of the matter, the Honourable court be pleased to dispense with service at first instance, and hear the application expeditiously owing to its extreme and demonstrated urgency
THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to grant orders of inhibition to stop or inhibit any dealings with Land Parcels No.LAIKIPIA/KALALU/52; and order the maintenance of status quo in terms of occupation and possession, pending the hearing and determination of this application and suit.
THAT leave be granted to the Plaintiffs to amend the plaint filed herein on 25th November, 2010 as per the draft amended plaint annexed hereto and filed herewith;
THAT amended plaint annexed hereto be deemed to be duly filed and served;
THAT the Defendants be at liberty to file and serve an amended defence within fourteen (14) days from the date of making Orders 3 and 4 herein above, and the Plaintiffs be at liberty to file and serve an amended reply to the amended defence upon it;
THAT the costs of this application be in the cause;
Prayer 1 is spent. During interpartes hearing of the application on 5. 3.2014 counsels for the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant, by consent, agreed not to contest prayers 3, 4 and 5. they, therefore, confined their submissions to prayer 2.
The applicants sought the order of inhibition and the maintenance of the status quo. They submitted that the 1st plaintiff was the wife of the 1st defendant and that the other plaintiffs were the children of the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The 1st plaintiff, according to the submissions, had contributed to the purchase of the suit land and was entitled to half-share of the suit land. The plaintiffs opined that the sale to the 2nd defendant was fraudulent and craved for the orders sought to preserve the suit land pending hearing and determination of this suit.
The 2nd defendant opposed the granting of the orders sought in prayer 2. It was claimed that 2 of the children of the 1st defendant were witnesses to the sale agreement. It was argued that the plaintiffs were strangers to the suit, that they lived on another piece of land and had no title. It was also proffered that the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant had no intention of selling the suit land.
I have carefully considered the averments, annextures and the submisisons of the parties. Some of the issues raised by the parties can only properly and conclusively be canvassed during the hearing of the main suit. I note that the 2nd defendant has in his replying affidavit claimed that the sale agreement between him and the 1st Respondent/ 1st defendant had been witnessed by the 1st defendant's children. But there is no claim that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs/Applicants, who claim to be the children of the 1st defendant, were witnesses to that agreement. The 2nd defendant/respondent has also not controverted the claim by the 1st plaintiff that Land Parcel No. Laikipia/Kalau/52 is now registered or held jointly in the names of the 1st and 2nd defendants.
Having considered the relative weight of the propositions of the parties, I find that prayer 2 in this application is merited. It is hereby granted.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 2nd day of April, 2014 in the presence of :
Cc. Daniel/Christine
Kaumbi for the applicants.
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE