[2012] KEHC 2828 (KLR)
The court found that the injunction granted to the Plaintiff was prohibitory in nature, intended only to restrain the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff's proprietary rights, not to authorize any positive acts such as demolition or removal of structures. The Plaintiff's actions in demolishing or removing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2828 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Immaculate Awino; Defendant: Wensley Barasa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 93 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Discharge Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunction discharged; parties to revert to pre-suit positions; Defendant awarded costs of the application.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Proprietary Rights, Possession Disputes, Mandatory Vs Prohibitory Injunctions
- 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
Immaculate Awino
Plaintiff
Wensley Barasa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Discharge Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interlocutory injunction granted to the Plaintiff was properly used or misused.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a prohibitory or mandatory injunction based on the facts presented.
- 3 Whether the Defendant was entitled to discharge or vacate the injunction order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the injunction granted to the Plaintiff was prohibitory in nature, intended only to restrain the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff's proprietary rights, not to authorize any positive acts such as demolition or removal of structures. The Plaintiff's actions in demolishing or removing items on the land exceeded the scope of the prohibitory injunction and amounted to misuse of the equitable remedy. The court emphasized the distinction between prohibitory and mandatory injunctions, noting that mandatory injunctions require a higher threshold and are only granted in unusually strong cases. Since the Plaintiff misused the injunction, the equitable remedy was no...
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunction discharged; parties to revert to pre-suit positions; Defendant awarded costs of the application.
Orders
- The interlocutory injunction issued to the Plaintiff is discharged and/or vacated.
- The parties shall revert to the position before the suit was filed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
Civil Suit 93 of 2011
IMMACULATE AWINO................................................ PLAINTIFF
~VRS~
WENSLEY BARASA......................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
When the Plaintiff filed this suit on 13/10/2011 she stated that she was since 30/12/2010 the registered proprietor of land parcel no.E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/5778 which she had bought on 29/12/2010. She further stated that on visiting the land she had found that the Defendant had since May 1993 been on the land on which he had put up a semi-permanent house and a toilet. Her case was that she had requested the Defendant to vacate without success. The suit sought eviction.
Filed with the suit was an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendant, and all those acting under him, from interfering with or in any manner baking bricks, ploughing or selling it or leasing it or interfering with the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights till the hearing of the application interpartes. The Plaintiff was asked to serve the application and when it was not responded to it was granted with costs.
The Defendant seeks the discharge of the orders on the basis that the Plaintiff used the order to demolish part of his houses and has annexed photographs as evidence of the destruction. The Defendant ‘s case is that he bought the land in 1987 and has occupied it ever since. He stated that he bought the parcel from one Evans and went into occupation but did not get title. He was surprised that the Plaintiff has bought the same parcels and has title and has begun fencing it. The application sought, among other things, an order that the Plaintiff removes the fence and stops any construction or further demolition.
The response by the Plaintiff to the application was that she was the registered proprietor. She annexed title deed. She denied that she effected any demolition and stated that she was only removing the “palls” left on the side by the Defendant when he was stopped from making bricks here. She denied that the Defendant had any house on the land or that he was residing here.
The injunction order that the Plaintiffs sought and obtained was a restraining one. It was a prohibitory order. The Plaintiff’s own pleadings stated that the Defendant was in possession since 1993. The injunction sought was not a mandatory one. It was an order to restrain the Defendant from doing an act (baking bricks, ploughing, selling or leasing the land) but not to do a particular act (for instance, pull down a house, remove the bricks or the implements for making bricks or evict) (Yego v. Tuiya & Another [1986] KLR 726). The acts of demolishing the houses or removing “palls” left by the making of bricks were positive orders that required a mandatory injunction. In East African fine Spinners Ltd and Others v. Bedi Investment Ltd, Civil Application no. Nai 72 of 1994 the Court of Appeal explained the difference between mandatory and prohibitory injunctions. It explained that prohibitory injunctions are meant to prevent for the future continuance or the repetition of the conduct of which the plaintiff complains, and it does not attempt to deal with what has happened in the past; that is left for the trial, to be dealt with by damages or otherwise. A mandatory injunction, on the other hand, is often a means of undoing what has already been done so far as that is possible. Prohibitory injunction merely requires abstention from acting, while mandatory injunction requires the taking of positive steps and requires the dismantling or destruction of something already erected or constructed and therefore the case has to be unusually strong before the injunction can be granted.
An injunction is an equitable remedy and once misused it has to be discharged and/or vacated. It is no longer deserved.
These are the reasons why the interlocutory injunction that was issued herein is discharged and/or vacated. The parties shall revert to the position before the suit was filed. The Defendant shall be paid costs of the application.
Dated, signed and delivered at Bungoma this 26th day of July 2012.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE