[2011] KEHC 1230 (KLR)
The court held that the injunctive order issued on 11th February 2011, which restrained the applicant from disposing of, alienating, transferring, dealing with, or interfering with the suit property, necessarily included the tea crops growing on the land. The court reasoned that land, by legal definition,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1230 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Harrison Maina Meru; Respondent: Beatrice Nyambura Meru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 20 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons to Vary Injunctive Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Variation of Orders, Quiet Enjoyment, Succession Disputes
- 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
Harrison Maina Meru
Applicant
Beatrice Nyambura Meru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons to Vary Injunctive Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interim injunctive orders issued on 11th February 2011 should be varied to allow the applicant to pick and deliver tea from L.R. NO. CHANIA/MATAARA/1398.
- 2 Whether the applicant's quiet enjoyment of the suit property has been unlawfully interfered with by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the injunctive order issued on 11th February 2011, which restrained the applicant from disposing of, alienating, transferring, dealing with, or interfering with the suit property, necessarily included the tea crops growing on the land. The court reasoned that land, by legal definition, encompasses everything growing on it, making it inconceivable to separate the land from the crops. Therefore, the applicant was restrained from picking tea from the disputed property. The court found no merit in the applicant's request to vary the order and dismissed the application with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The Summons General dated 18th May 2011 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 20 OF 2004
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL MERU GICHUHI(DECEASED)
HARRISON MAINA MERU…………………….………............……APPLICANT
VERSUS
BEATRICE NYAMBURA MERU.......................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The subject matter of this ruling is the Summons General dated 18th May 2011 in which Harrison Maina Meru, the applicant herein, sought for the following orders:
That the application be certified urgent.
That the interim injunctive orders given by this Honourable court on the 11th day of February 2011 be varied to the extent that the Respondent by herself or agents be stopped from interfering with the Applicant quiet enjoyment of the suit properties contained in the order or interfering with the applicant picking and delivering his tea produce in L.R. CHANIA/MAATARA/1398 to Maatara tea factory Co. Ltd. until the determination of the summons for revocation of grant.
That costs be provided for.
It is the submission of the Applicant that this court in its ruling delivered on 11th February 2011 did not order him to cease working on the land, deliver the produce nor did it deny him the source of livelihood. The Applicant complained that the Respondents have misused the court order by interfering with his enjoyment of picking tea from L.R. NO. CHANIA/MATAARA/1398. He claimed that he was informed by the tea factory that his account had been frozen due to the court order. It is further alleged that on 11th May 2011 the Applicant’s sister Ann Wambui Meru raided his tea farm and forcefully picked his tea. On the basis of the above reason the Applicant urged this court to vary the orders issued on 11th February 2011.
I have carefully considered the grounds set out on the face of the Summons General dated 18th May 2011 and the facts deponed in the supporting affidavit. The Applicant is basically seeking to have the order issued on 11th February 2011 varied so that the Applicant may continue picking tea from L.R. NO. CHANIA/MATAARA/1398. It is not in dispute that the Applicant herein was restrained from disposing of, alienating, transferring, dealing and or in any way interfering withinteralia L.R. NO. CHANIA/MATAARA/1398. In Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th Edition,“Land” is defined as an immovable and indestructible three dimensional area consisting of a portion of the earth’s surface, the space above and below the surface and everything growing on or permanently affixed to it. From the above definition, it is obvious that the tea crops on the land in dispute form part of the land hence it is not conceivable to separate the two. In my view, the order issued on 11th February 2011 restrained the Applicant from picking the tea standing thereon. In the circumstances of this case and on the basis of the material placed before me, I see no merit in the Summons General dated 18th May 2011. The same is ordered dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 14th day of October 2011.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In open court in the presence of Mr. A. Kariuki holding brief Kiminda for Applicant and Gitibi holding brief Muthoni for Respondent.