[2023] KEELC 21085 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 21085 (KLR)

The court held that since it had already delivered its judgment, it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to grant the temporary injunction sought by the applicant. The court reasoned that any orders relating to the preservation of the subject property pending appeal should be sought from the Court of Appeal,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 21085 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Shukri Ismael Jama; Respondent: Mariam Mohammed; Respondent: Isiolo County Government
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Isiolo
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E010 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
PM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Eviction Proceedings, Functus Officio, Pending Appeal, Irreparable Harm
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Temporary Injunctions Eviction Proceedings Functus Officio Pending Appeal Irreparable Harm

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

Shukri Ismael Jama

Appellant

Mariam Mohammed

Respondent

Isiolo County Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction after judgment has been delivered and an appeal is pending.
  2. 2 Whether granting the injunction would amount to the court sitting on appeal over its own decision.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of a temporary injunction pending the outcome of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since it had already delivered its judgment, it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to grant the temporary injunction sought by the applicant. The court reasoned that any orders relating to the preservation of the subject property pending appeal should be sought from the Court of Appeal, which is now seized of the matter. Granting the orders would amount to the court sitting in appeal over its own decision, which is impermissible. The application was therefore dismissed, and costs awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs shall follow the event and are awarded to the respondents.