[2022] KEELC 2046 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 2046 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st defendant is the absolute registered proprietor of the suit property and that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case against the respondents. The court held that the balance of convenience does not favour the applicant and that the requirements for grant of an interlocutory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 2046 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hassanat Mwanadzomba Hassan; Respondent: Joseph Kithuku Kitonga; Respondent: Larry Ngala Mwahendo; Respondent: Jarvis Dondo Mwahendo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 218 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Ownership Disputes, Title Registration, Adverse Possession
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Ownership Disputes Title Registration Adverse Possession

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hassanat Mwanadzomba Hassan

Applicant

Joseph Kithuku Kitonga

Respondent

Larry Ngala Mwahendo

Respondent

Jarvis Dondo Mwahendo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st defendant is the absolute registered proprietor of the suit property and that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case against the respondents. The court held that the balance of convenience does not favour the applicant and that the requirements for grant of an interlocutory injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd were not met. Consequently, the application for injunction lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory injunction is dismissed.
  • Costs to be in the cause.