[2008] KEHC 3303 (KLR)
The court found that the relationship between the parties, being father and son, had deteriorated and that the defendant, as the registered proprietor, had taken steps to evict the plaintiff without the matter being fully determined. The absence of the defendant in court and the potential danger to the plaintiff's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3303 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jackson Kamau; Defendant: Nelson C. Karuma
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 164 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Interlocutory Injunction Ruling
- Outcome
- Injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff; costs to the plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Eviction Disputes, Ownership of Land, Family 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
Jackson Kamau
Plaintiff
Nelson C. Karuma
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Injunction Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from evicting him from the suit land.
- 2 Whether the relationship between the parties affects the right to occupation and enjoyment of the land.
- 3 Whether the defendant's actions pose a danger to the plaintiff's quiet enjoyment of the property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the relationship between the parties, being father and son, had deteriorated and that the defendant, as the registered proprietor, had taken steps to evict the plaintiff without the matter being fully determined. The absence of the defendant in court and the potential danger to the plaintiff's quiet enjoyment of the property justified the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court held that restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff was necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the main suit is determined.
Court Disposition
Injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff; costs to the plaintiff.
Orders
- An injunction is issued restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff from the suit land pending determination of the main suit.
- Costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
Civil Suit 164 of 2008
1. Land Environmental Law Division
2. Subject of main suit: Land
i) L.R. Ndumberi/Riabai/1072
ii) Ownership of land Trust
iii) Injunction to restrain defendant from eviction
3. Application 10th April, 2007
i) Injunction to restrain defendant from entering the plaintiff farm land.
4. Respondent served - absent
5. Reasons for injunction
i) The parties are son and father
ii) Father alleges the son declines to honour him, there is no respect
iii) Order to vacate land.
6. Held:
Injunction to issue to restrain defendant from evicting plaintiffs from land.
7. Case Law -Nil
8. Advocate
P.T. Kabue instructed by Kabue Thumi & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff – present
No representation for the respondent/defendant - absent
JACKSON KAMAU …………………….………………………… PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
NELSON C. KARUMA ……….……….……...……...………… DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
Application for an injunction
I: Background
1. The plaintiff herein, Jackson Kamau is related to the defendant Nelson C. Karuma, as his biological father.
2. The two fell out due to some misunderstanding not quite clear. The effect was that parties have been to the authorities and no amicable agreement reached.
3. The defendant claimed he built the house the plaintiff resided in 1981. The defendant then proceeded to build trenches around the house after issuing notices to vacate the suit premises on grounds that the plaintiff had no respect for him. Another notice was issued earlier by an advocate of the High Court of Kenya, to have the respondent evicted.
4. A related suit was filed in the Kiambu – magistrate’s court being SRMCC 9/08 that was withdrawn.
5. This court herein has been informed that the plaintiff seeks injunction to restrain the defendant in his action his father who is the registered proprietor.
II Findings
6. The matter before me involves a relationship between a father and son. This relationship has deteriorated. The father has failed to attend court. The father further pleads that the plaintiff in matter vacates his premises.
7. I would note the danger that would occur if the defendant is not restrained from his actions. This court grants the injunction and allows the plaintiff quite enjoyment of his stay on the suit land pending the determination of the main suit.
8. There will be cost to the plaintiff.
DATED THIS 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2008 AT NAIROBI
M. A. ANG’AWA
J U D G E
P.T. Kabue instructed by Kabue Thumi & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff – present
No representation for the respondent/defendant - present