[2008] KEHC 842 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs, as a group of squatters settled by the government and having occupied the land for over 12 years, had established a sufficient interest in the suit property to warrant protection by way of an interlocutory injunction. Although adverse possession cannot be claimed against...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 842 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Irene Nadupoi Gitau (suing on behalf of herself and of all the 114 stakeholders of parcel number L.R. No.8390 Block II Kamiti/Kiambu); Defendant: Stephen Kamau; Defendant: Hannah Wanjiru Kamau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 419 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for injunction granted with costs to the plaintiff until determination of the suit.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Adverse Possession, Beneficial Ownership, Eviction, Locus Standi
- 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
Irene Nadupoi Gitau (suing on behalf of herself and of all the 114 stakeholders of parcel number L.R. No.8390 Block II Kamiti/Kiambu)
Plaintiff
Stephen Kamau
Defendant
Hannah Wanjiru Kamau
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from selling or evicting them from the suit land.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to bring the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs, as a group of squatters settled by the government and having occupied the land for over 12 years, had established a sufficient interest in the suit property to warrant protection by way of an interlocutory injunction. Although adverse possession cannot be claimed against government land, the plaintiffs' claim of beneficial ownership and the threat of eviction by the defendants, who acted without the authority of the group, justified the grant of an injunction. The court held that the plaintiffs should not be removed from the land without a full hearing and/or court order, and that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo until the...
Court Disposition
Application for injunction granted with costs to the plaintiff until determination of the suit.
Orders
- An interlocutory injunction is granted restraining the defendants from selling or evicting the plaintiffs from the suit land until determination of the suit.
- Costs of the application to be paid by the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 419 of 2008 (ELC)
IRENE NADUPOI GITAU
(Suing on behalf of herself and of all the 114Stake holders ofparcel number
L.R. No.8390 Block II Kamiti/Kiambu …….……..…….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
STEPHEN KAMAU ………………………………… 1ST DEFENDANT
HANNAH WANJIRU KAMAU ……….……………. 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAISNTTHE 1 AND 2 DEFENDANT DATEDCHAMBER SUMMONS 28TH AUGUST 2008
I: Background
1. In brief, the 115 plaintiffs herein allege that they were squatters gathered from various places in Nairobi and were settled by the Government of Kenya on land parcel LR No.8390 Block II situated in the Kamiti/Kiambu area.
2. As a precaution, they formed into an informal group known by the name Mungano wa Kamiti Group. They chose, the 1st and 2nd defendants herein namely Stephen Kamau 1st defendant and Hannah Wanjiru Kamau 2nd defendant to be their office bearers. The defendants are related to each other as man and wife.
3. Unfortunately without notifying the other members the two entered into agreement with third parties to sell land to them. The third parties moved onto the land with threats to evict all the plaintiffs from the land.
4. The plaintiff filed suit now before this court. By an application of 28 August 2008 they sought orders to restrain the 1st and 2nd defendant from selling land and or evicting them from the land.
5. The advocate for the plaintiff spoke of adverse possession as the plaintiffs having been on the land for over 12 years should not be evicted. The advocate conceeded that government owned land cannot be claimed under Adverse Possession.
6. In reply the advocate for defendant 1 and 2 stated that there was indeed no cause of action. The locus of the plaintiffs was questioned.
II: Finding
7. The plaintiff will prove, after being heard in a trial that they are the beneficial owners of the suit property including the defendant.
8. The defendant stated in reply that they were forced to acquire “money to pay an advocate” for a court case at Kiambu still pending. They did this in desperation and is reasons why they “borrowed” Ksh.20,000/- from a third party. Further the said third party then loaned the money on condition that the wife and the husband be given the land and be members of the group.
9. It was therefore under those terms that the two were brought onto the land.
10. This is a court of Equity. The plaintiffs claim they are under threats of eviction. The court recognize that the plaintiffs are in grave danger of being evicted from their present suit land. All of them claim to have a right to the land and be there as a group. The plaintiffs are nonetheless opposed to having the defendants sell off portion of land to strangers.
11. This court though is of the opinion that the numerous plaintiffs cannot be removed from land which they claim they owned over 12 years ago without a full hearing and or court order.
I grant the application for injunction with costs to the plaintiff to be paid by the defendants till the determination of the suit.
DATED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008 AT NAIROBI.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
A.S. Kuloba instructed by A.S. Kuloba & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff/applicant – present
M. Mureithi instructed by Mbugua Mureithi & Co. Advocates for the defendant/Respondent - present