[2014] KEHC 253 (KLR)

[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
Land and Property Civil Procedure Inhibition Orders Status Quo Orders Land Ownership Disputes Interlocutory Injunctions

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 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. 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.