[2014] KEHC 4035 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a sale agreement or application for consent to the Land Control Board, to support his claim that only 32 acres were sold and not the entire 47.5 acres. The land was transferred to the 1st respondent in 1976, and the current registered...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4035 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ibrahim Juma Mukamo; Respondent: Keya Mutinyi Watako; Respondent: Ismael Tete Keya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 228 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Land Ownership, Registration of Title, Subdivision of Land
- 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
Ibrahim Juma Mukamo
Applicant
Keya Mutinyi Watako
Respondent
Ismael Tete Keya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with the suit properties.
- 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an injunction.
- 3 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a sale agreement or application for consent to the Land Control Board, to support his claim that only 32 acres were sold and not the entire 47.5 acres. The land was transferred to the 1st respondent in 1976, and the current registered owners have held title since then. The applicant's delay in asserting his claim, only raising the dispute in 2011, undermined his case. The court held that granting the injunction would prejudice the respondents, who are the registered owners, and that no irreparable harm would befall the applicant if the orders were not granted. The status quo has existed since 1976, and there...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 22/10/2013 is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA
LAND AND ENVIRONMENT NO; 228 OF 2013
IBRAHIM JUMA MUKAMO........................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
KEYA MUTINYI WATAKO...................................................1ST RESPONDENT
ISMAEL TETE KEYA..........................................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
The application dated 22/10/2013 is seeking an order of injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing with plot No; NORTH/WANGA/KHALABA/645 or the subsequent sub-divisions being plot Nos. 1145 & 1146. The applicant is also seeking a restriction to be registered against the suit properties. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit sworn on the same date. The respondents filed a replying affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent on the 12/11/2013. Parties relied on the applications and the replying affidavit.
The applicants position is that he was the original owner of plot No; 645 measuring 47 ½ acres. He sold 32 acres for consideration of Ksh 16,000/= in 1972 to the 1st respondent. However the entire land was registered in the names of the 1st respondent who sub-divided it into plots No. 1145 and 1146. It is the applicant’s submissions that the 1st respondent only paid Ksh 11,000/= and remained with a balance of Ksh 5,000/=. He is seeking to restrain the respondents from dealing with the suit property.
On their part the respondents maintain that they are the registered owners of plot No. 1145 and 1146. The 1st respondent bought the entire original plot No. 645 and was transferred to him on 27/8/1976. It is also contended that the entire purchased price was paid. The original title was closed and the land was sub-divided. They have no intention of selling the land. The applicant went to the Mumias Land Disputes Tribunal and those proceedings were quashed through Kakamega High Msc Appl. 58 of 2011.
The pleadings herein show that the applicant was the original owner of the suit land. A copy of the green card shows that the land was transferred to the 1st respondent on 27/8/1976. The title was closed on 5/10/1989. Currently the 1st respondent is registered as the owner of plot No. 1145 measuring 4. 4 Hectares while the 2nd respondent is registered as the owner of Plot No; 1146. There is no sale agreement annexed to show that indeed what was sold was 32 acres and not 47 ½ acres. The dispute before the Mumias Land Disputes Tribunal was filed in 2011, vide case No. 11 of 2011. It is not clear why the applicant kept quiet from 1976 upto 2011. There is no other document such as application for consent to the Land control board that can show that what was sold was only 32 acres. At this preliminary stage I do find that granting the orders being sought would prejudice the respondents who are the registered owners. I do find that no irreparable damage would befall the applicant if the orders are not granted. The current status quo has been in existence since 1976 and there is no urgency that requires the orders to be granted.
In the end I do find that the application dated 22/10/2012 lacks merit and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Dated, signed and Delivered at Kakamega this 10th day of July 2014.
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE