[2019] KEHC 6256 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, Lucy Wanjiku, is the sole owner of parcel No Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/223 by virtue of a certificate of confirmation of grant dated 2/2/18. The respondents did not contest the application or provide any evidence to justify their actions. The court determined that the applicant had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 6256 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucy Wanjiku; Respondent: Julius Njuguna; Respondent: Peter Maina
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 2 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction
- Outcome
- application allowed; permanent injunction granted; no order as to costs
- Judges
- AG Ndung'u
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Estate Administration, Beneficial Ownership, Land Disputes
- 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
Lucy Wanjiku
Applicant
Julius Njuguna
Respondent
Peter Maina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with parcel No Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/223.
- 2 Whether the respondents have any legal justification to interfere with the applicant's ownership of the property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, Lucy Wanjiku, is the sole owner of parcel No Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/223 by virtue of a certificate of confirmation of grant dated 2/2/18. The respondents did not contest the application or provide any evidence to justify their actions. The court determined that the applicant had established a clear right to the property and that the respondents' actions constituted unlawful interference. Given the uncontroverted evidence and the absence of any legal justification from the respondents, the court held that the applicant was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the property.
Court Disposition
application allowed; permanent injunction granted; no order as to costs
Orders
- The application dated 3/5/19 is allowed.
- The respondents are permanently restrained by injunction from interfering with parcel No Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/223.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 2 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DEDAN NDIRITU WAMBUGU....(DECEASED)
VERSUS
JULIUS NJUGUNA...............................................1ST RESPONDENT
PETER MAINA......................................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application before court is dated 3/5/19. The prayers sought are;
1. Spent
2. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant conservatory orders injunction the Respondents from interfering with the estate of the deceased especially Parcel No BAHHATI/KABATINI BLOCK 1/223 pending the hearing and determination of this Application.
3. THAT cost of this application is borne by the Respondent.
2. The same is premised on the following grounds;
a. THAT the plaintiff/Applicant is the beneficial owner of all that parcel of land known as BAHATI/KABATINI BLOCK 1/223.
b. THAT applicant acquired the said property vide Nakuru succession cause No 2 of 2014.
c. THAT the said property belonged to the late Dedan Nderitu Wambugu her brother.
d. THAT the Respondents have illegally encroached on the said land parcel.
e. THAT the respondents without permission from the applicant are in the process of transferring selling and/or tempering with land parcel known as BAHATI/KABATINI BLOCK 1/223.
f. Despite several complaints made before the area chief to intervene the respondent have remained adamant hence this suit.
3. It is supported by the affidavit of Lucy Wanjiku.
4. Despite evidence of proper service, the application was not opposed.
5. The gist of the application is that the applicant is the owner through transmission of land parcel No Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/223 persuant to a certificate of confirmation of granted dated 2/2/18. (Annexline L.W.1).
6. It is urged that without colour of right the respondents have forcefully invaded the said parcel of land and are in the process of selling and/or tampering with the said land.
7. Efforts to report the matter to the area chief and village elders did not bear a solution.
8. It is sought that the respondents be restrained from their illegal acts.
9. I have considered the application, the grounds raised and the supporting affidavit.
10. The evidence before court is crystal clear land parcel No Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/223 was shared out in whole share to Lucy Wanjiku, the applicant vide a certificate of confirmation of grant dated 2/2/18.
11. This evidence has not been controverted and neither is there any iota of evidence giving justification to the respondents to interfere with the land.
12. In the circumstances, the injunction orders sought is merited.
13. I find for the applicant and make the following orders;
1. The application dated 3/5/19 is allowed.
2. The respondents be and are hereby by way of a permanent injunction restrained from interfering with parcel No Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/223.
3. Noting that the application was not opposed, I make no orders as to costs.
Dated and Delivered at Nakuru this 20th day of JUNE 2019.
A. K. NDUNG'U
JUDGE