[2013] KEHC 4958 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 4958 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case as the registered owner of the suit property, with no evidence of encumbrances or overriding interests. The respondents' actions in fencing off the property and preventing the applicant's access were uncontroverted. The court held that unless...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 4958 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jackson K. Tuitoek; Defendant: Stephen Tangus Selienyi; Defendant: Michael Chebii; Defendant: Vincent Moiben
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 91 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction (ex Parte)
Outcome
Application allowed; interlocutory injunction granted as prayed.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Ownership Disputes, Title Deeds, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Ownership Disputes Title Deeds Balance of Convenience

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson K. Tuitoek

Plaintiff

Stephen Tangus Selienyi

Defendant

Michael Chebii

Defendant

Vincent Moiben

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction (ex Parte)

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of an injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case as the registered owner of the suit property, with no evidence of encumbrances or overriding interests. The respondents' actions in fencing off the property and preventing the applicant's access were uncontroverted. The court held that unless restrained, the applicant would suffer prejudice that could not be adequately compensated by damages. The balance of convenience was found to favour the applicant. Accordingly, the court granted the interlocutory injunction as prayed, restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit property pending the determination of the suit.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; interlocutory injunction granted as prayed.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining the respondents, their agents, servants or any other persons from interfering with parcel NAKURU/NGONGONGERI/1285 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.