[2021] KEELC 2101 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 2101 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, given that the issues regarding ownership and possession of the suit land had already been determined in previous proceedings, including Kisumu CM (ELC) No. 166 of 2018 and Kisumu ELCC No. 131 of 2007, with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 2101 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Isaac Ouma Kumba; Defendant: Perez Awiti Ayamo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E004 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Injunctive Relief, Eviction Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Injunctive Relief Eviction Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaac Ouma Kumba

Plaintiff

Perez Awiti Ayamo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to land parcel Kisumu/Nayalenda “B”/1883 by adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining eviction pending hearing of the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the issues raised are res judicata due to prior litigation and decisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, given that the issues regarding ownership and possession of the suit land had already been determined in previous proceedings, including Kisumu CM (ELC) No. 166 of 2018 and Kisumu ELCC No. 131 of 2007, with appeals dismissed. The application for a temporary injunction was, in substance, an attempt to stay execution of a valid court order, which is not permissible. The plaintiff's failure to raise the issue of limitation under the Limitation of Actions Act in the earlier proceedings was fatal to his current application. Consequently, the court dismissed the application with costs,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 13/2/2021 is dismissed with costs to the defendant.