[2018] KEELC 3905 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The Plaintiff admitted to a double allocation of the Suit Property and did not produce the memorandum of agreement to confirm the alleged arrangement for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3905 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Hassan Haji Abdi Ladif; Defendant: Nairobi City County; Defendant: Joseph Malakwen Sitienei; Defendant: Al Mustaqbal Co. Ltd; Defendant: National Land Commission
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 695 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the 1st and 3rd Defendants
- Judges
- AK Bor
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Double Allocation, Ownership Dispute, Co Ownership, Title Authenticity
- 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
Hassan Haji Abdi Ladif
Plaintiff
Nairobi City County
Defendant
Joseph Malakwen Sitienei
Defendant
Al Mustaqbal Co. Ltd
Defendant
National Land Commission
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of an injunction.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated ownership or co-ownership of the Suit Property.
- 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief against the Defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The Plaintiff admitted to a double allocation of the Suit Property and did not produce the memorandum of agreement to confirm the alleged arrangement for co-ownership with the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff's documentation was also challenged as unauthentic by the 1st Defendant, and there was a discrepancy in the property description. In the absence of sufficient evidence of ownership or co-ownership, and with the Plaintiff failing to meet the threshold for injunctive relief, the application was dismissed with costs to the 1st...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the 1st and 3rd Defendants
Orders
- The application dated 22/6/2016 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the 1st and 3rd Defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
E.L.C. CASE NO. 695 of 2016
HASSAN HAJI ABDI LADIF .................................. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NAIROBI CITY COUNTY ............................ 1ST DEFENDANT
JOSEPH MALAKWEN SITIENEI .................. 2ND DEFENDANT
AL MUSTAQBAL CO. LTD ............................. 3RD DEFENDANT
NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION ................ 4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff seeks an injunction to restrain the Defendants from evicting him or trespassing, selling, charging, constructing, leasing or committing acts of waste on L.R. No. 209/8534/130 South C, Nairobi (“the Suit Property”) pending hearing and determination of this suit.
He claims the 1st Defendant allocated him the Suit Property vide the letter of allotment dated 25/11/1997 and that he paid the stand premium and other dues on 16//2/2016. He claims to have processed the allotment and that the Suit Property was transferred to him on 21/7/2010. He later learnt that there had been double allocation of the Suit Property to him and the 2nd Defendant. He avers that he entered into an agreement with the 2nd Defendant on 4/9/2014 to have their two names registered as co-owners of the Suit Property. However, he did not annex a copy of the agreement evidencing this. His complaint is that the 2nd Defendant is colluding with the 1st Defendant to transfer the Suit Property to the 3rd Defendant contrary to the earlier agreement for co-ownership of the plot. He is apprehensive that the Defendants may evict him from the Suit Property and that he stands to suffer loss and damage.
The 1st Defendant denies allotting the Suit Property to the Plaintiff and maintains that the documents that the Plaintiff relies on to prove his ownership of the Suit Property are not authentic. Further, the 1st Defendant denies that it demanded or received stand premium and other dues from the Plaintiff. It avers that the Plaintiff has been in illegal occupation of the Suit Property for which he ought to pay damages. The 1st Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff’s documents show that he is pursuing plot no. L.R. No. 209/8534/130; which is different from the Suit Property. The Plaintiff’s advocate termed this an error and apologised for the error while making her oral submissions. The 3rd Defendant’s counsel associated himself with the submissions of the 1st Defendant. He urged the court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for injunction stating that the 3rd Defendant is in occupation of the Suit Property.
Has the Plaintiff demonstrated that he has a prima facie case with a probability of success against the Defendants? The court thinks not. The Plaintiff admits there was double allocation of the Suit Property. He did not exhibit the memorandum of agreement to confirm that he entered into an arrangement with the 2nd Defendant for co-ownership of the Suit Property.
The application dated 22/6/2016 is dismissed with costs to the 1st and 3rd Defendants.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 7th day of February 2018.
K. BOR
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Ms. Chepkong’a for the Plaintiff
Mr. Mapesa holding brief for Mr. Anyoka for the 3rd Defendant
No appearance for 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants
Mr. V. Owuor- Court Assistant