[2018] KEELC 2496 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2496 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case as required by the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown. The issues raised in the application were contested and could only be determined conclusively at a full hearing where evidence would be adduced and witnesses cross-examined. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 2496 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ibrahim Nyambare King’oina; Plaintiff: Robert Onsomu; Plaintiff: Gideon Mogaka Nyabando; Defendant: Peninah Nabaala; Defendant: Charles Nabaala
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 585 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application partly allowed; interlocutory orders granted in terms of prayers 3 and 5; costs in the cause.
Judges
MN Kullow
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Prima Facie Case, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Interlocutory Injunctions Prima Facie Case Land Disputes

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

Ibrahim Nyambare King’oina

Plaintiff

Robert Onsomu

Plaintiff

Gideon Mogaka Nyabando

Plaintiff

Peninah Nabaala

Defendant

Charles Nabaala

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of interlocutory orders.
  2. 2 Whether the contested issues require determination at a full hearing with evidence and cross-examination.
  3. 3 Whether prayers 2 and 4, being final orders, can be granted at the interlocutory stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case as required by the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown. The issues raised in the application were contested and could only be determined conclusively at a full hearing where evidence would be adduced and witnesses cross-examined. The court therefore allowed the application in terms of prayers 3 and 5, which were appropriate at the interlocutory stage, but declined to grant prayers 2 and 4 as they amounted to final orders that could not be issued at this stage. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed; interlocutory orders granted in terms of prayers 3 and 5; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Application dated 11th December, 2017 allowed in terms of prayers 3 and 5.
  • Prayers 2 and 4 declined as they are final orders.