[2012] KEHC 2330 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff, although the registered proprietor, admitted that the 1st defendant is in possession and the 2nd defendant, his son, resides on the land. The 2nd defendant had purported to sell part of the land to the 1st defendant, who paid the full purchase price and was put in possession. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2330 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jackson Masibo (suing through Job Ngukhunasi Jackson, holder of General Power of Attorney); Defendant: Moses N. Sangura; Defendant: Robert S. Masibo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 53 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for temporary injunction declined; inhibition order granted.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Capacity to Sell Land, Registration of Titles
- 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 Masibo (suing through Job Ngukhunasi Jackson, holder of General Power of Attorney)
Plaintiff
Moses N. Sangura
Defendant
Robert S. Masibo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants should be restrained by temporary injunction from interfering with land parcel Bokoli/Mukuyuni/878 pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the 2nd defendant had capacity to sell the land to the 1st defendant.
- 3 Whether the transaction was fraudulent or illegal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff, although the registered proprietor, admitted that the 1st defendant is in possession and the 2nd defendant, his son, resides on the land. The 2nd defendant had purported to sell part of the land to the 1st defendant, who paid the full purchase price and was put in possession. The plaintiff's claim of trespass could not be maintained as both defendants had a basis to be on the land. The plaintiff had not sought a temporary mandatory injunction, which would be necessary to remove the defendants from possession. The court declined to grant the temporary injunction sought but, to preserve the subject matter, ordered the District Land Registrar to register...
Court Disposition
Application for temporary injunction declined; inhibition order granted.
Orders
- The application for a temporary injunction is declined.
- The District Land Registrar is ordered to register an inhibition against the title to land parcel Bokoli/Mukuyuni/878 until the suit is heard and finalized.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
Civil Suit 53 of 2012
JACKSON MASIBO(Suing through job ngukhunasi jakson the holder of General Power of Attorney)...................................................PLAINTIFF
~VRS~
MOSES N. SANGURA...........................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
ROBERT S. MASIBO............................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The motion filed on 13/4/2012 seeks that the Defendants and all those acting under them be restrained by an order of temporary injunction form wasting, alienating, trespassing, developing or in any other manner interfering with land parcel no.Bokoli/Mukuyuni/878 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit land since 1964. It measures 8. 5 hectares or thereabouts. Job Ngukhunasi Jackson through whom he is suing is his son. The 2nd Defendant is also his son. The sons have, apparently, different mothers. The 2nd defendant stays on the suit land. On 10/2/2012 the 2nd Defendant purported to sell 3. 7 acres of the suit land to the 1st Defendant for Ksh.1,180,000/= which was paid in full. The 1st Defendant was put in possession. The Plaintiff’s case is that he was unaware of the sale and that the transaction was fraudulent and illegal. The Defendants claim that the Plaintiff was involved, he had given the portion to the mother of the 2nd Defendant and that he knew and gave authority to the sale.
Before the Plaintiff came to court he complained to the local administration which ruled in favour of the Defendants and endorsed the sale.
The suit was filed for a permanent injunction against the Defendants and those acting under them. In the plaint there is admission that the 1st Defendant is in possession. The 2nd Defendant lives on the land as the son of the Plaintiff. He was born here. The two can only be removed by a temporary mandatory injunction which has not been sought. An allegation of trespass against them cannot be maintained in the circumstances as they have a basis to be on the land.
The Plaintiff will be entitled to argue that the 2nd Defendant had no capacity to sell the land, the transaction has not received the blessings of the Land Control Board, or that he is not the one who was paid the purchase price. These will be legitimate concerns that he will raise at hearing.
I decline to grant the orders sought but, in the interest of justice and in order to protect the suit land from any possible alienation, I make an order that the District Land Registrar does register an inhibition against the title until the suit is heard and finalized.
Dated, signed and delivered at Bungoma this 26th day of July 2012.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE