[2017] KEELC 2769 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2769 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success because they demonstrated allocation of the suit property by the Makueni County Council, payment of requisite dues, and approval of the development plan. The defendants failed to provide evidence of the process by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 2769 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Hanzon Muindi Mutula; Plaintiff: Titus Mutei Mutiso; Plaintiff: Jonathan Mwake Muli; Plaintiff: Elijah Maingi Kamosu; Plaintiff: Patricia Nduku Muindi; Plaintiff: Stephen S.K.Kissili; Plaintiff: Rose Mutete Mutiso; Plaintiff: Monika Ndunge Kiatini; Defendant: Kennedy Mutua Ngunu; Defendant: Mbilo Malonza; Defendant: William Mbuvi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 43 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
plaintiffs' application for interlocutory injunction allowed
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Land Allocation, Title Disputes, Prima Facie Case
Source Language
en
Land and Property Injunctive Relief Land Allocation Title Disputes Prima Facie Case

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hanzon Muindi Mutula

Plaintiff

Titus Mutei Mutiso

Plaintiff

Jonathan Mwake Muli

Plaintiff

Elijah Maingi Kamosu

Plaintiff

Patricia Nduku Muindi

Plaintiff

Stephen S.K.Kissili

Plaintiff

Rose Mutete Mutiso

Plaintiff

Monika Ndunge Kiatini

Plaintiff

Kennedy Mutua Ngunu

Defendant

Mbilo Malonza

Defendant

William Mbuvi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants lawfully acquired title to the suit property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success because they demonstrated allocation of the suit property by the Makueni County Council, payment of requisite dues, and approval of the development plan. The defendants failed to provide evidence of the process by which they obtained their Certificates of Lease, such as letters of allotment or approved development plans, and did not show that their parcels did not overlap with the plaintiffs' allocated land. The court held that allowing the defendants to deal with the property would cause the plaintiffs irreparable loss. Consequently, the court granted the interlocutory injunction as prayed.

Court Disposition

plaintiffs' application for interlocutory injunction allowed

Orders

  • Defendants, their agents, or servants are restrained from carrying out any works or interfering with the plaintiffs' unsurveyed commercial plot at Emali Township pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
  • Costs of the application to be provided for.