[2017] KEELC 861 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff provided documentary evidence of his historical ownership and occupation of the suit land, and that the defendant, despite being served, failed to file any response or rebut the plaintiff's averments. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the court accepted the plaintiff's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 861 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James Kariuki; Defendant: Great Achiever Investment Group Ltd
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 225 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Title Disputes, Fraudulent Transfer, Possession and Occupation
- 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
James Kariuki
Plaintiff
Great Achiever Investment Group Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether an inhibition should be registered against L.R No. NTIMA/IGOKI/6035 to restrict dealings pending suit determination.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff provided documentary evidence of his historical ownership and occupation of the suit land, and that the defendant, despite being served, failed to file any response or rebut the plaintiff's averments. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the court accepted the plaintiff's account that the land was fraudulently transferred and that he remains in occupation. The court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo. Accordingly, the court granted the orders sought to inhibit dealings with the land and to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- An inhibition is issued and registered against L.R No. NTIMA/IGOKI/6035 to restrict any dealings or transfer pending hearing and determination of the suit or further court orders.
- An interlocutory prohibitory injunction is issued restraining the defendant, its servants or agents from evicting the plaintiff, demolishing his houses, alienating, selling, transferring or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff’s occupation and enjoyment of L.R. NO. NTIMA/IGOKI/6035 pending hearing and...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 225 OF 2017
JAMES KARIUKI...........................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GREAT ACHIEVER INVESTMENT GROUP LTD......DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2017 seeks the following orders:-
a) Spent.
b) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to order that an inhibition be issued and the same be registered against L.R No. NTIMA/IGOKI/6035 to restrict any dealings or transfer of the said parcel of land and the District Land Registrar, Meru Central District be directed to register the said inhibition against the said parcel of land pending the hearing and determination of this application inter parties or until further Court orders and / or this suit.
c) THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of an interlocutory prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its servants and/or agents or anybody else acting on its behest, direction, control or authority from evicting the plaintiff, demolishing his houses, alienating, selling, transferring and / or in any other way whatsoever interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet, peaceful, uninterrupted, actual and exclusive occupation and enjoyment in respect of the suit land L.R. NO. NTIMA / IGOKI / 6035 pending the hearing and determination of this application inter parties or until further Court orders and / or this suit.
d) THAT the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is based on the following grounds:-
a) THAT the plaintiff/applicant has been and is in possession of the suit land L.R. NO. NTIMA / IGOKI / 6035 and has fully and extensively developed the same.
b) THAT the defendat has fraudulently transferred the plaintiff’s parcel of land L.R. NO. NTIMA / IGOKI / 6035 in its name and is now secretly and stealthily seeking to sell same to a 3rd buyer.
c) THAT the defendant is intent on forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the suit land and this Court’s intervention is necessary to stop impunity and hooliganism.
d) THAT the Honourable Court do preserve the suit land and the status quo prevailing thereon by granting the prayers sought by the plaintiff.
3. The application is supported by the Affidavit of JAMES KARIUKI sworn on 24th July 2017, where he states: -
i. THAT sometimes in February 2012, Applicant approached the defendant with an offer to sell his parcel of land L.R. NO. NTIMA / IGOKI / 6035 to meet some urgent and unforeseen financial obligations.
ii. THAT on 9th February 2016 the defendant and Applicant entered into an agreement for sale of his land L.R. NO. NTIMA / IGOKI / 6035 measuring about 0. 0581 HA at a consideration of Kshs. 200,000/=. (Annexed herein and marked as exhibit JK-01 is a true copy of the agreement).
iii. THAT the defendant paid Applicant a sum of Kshs. 120,000/= on the said date of signing of the agreement and the balance of Kshs. 80,000/= was payable on or before the transfer of ownership pursuant to clause 2 of the agreement.
iv. THAT on the date of the agreement, the defendant further asked applicant to sign for them a transfer form as a sign of his commitment and to give them confidence and faith that he was ready and willing to transfer the said parcel of land to them once they paid him the balance.
v. THAT after a month of signing the said agreement Applicant approached the defendant’s official one DAVID MUTHUNGU for payment of the balance of Kshs. 80,000/= as he had met his side of the bargain by signing the transfer form in the defendant’s favour.
vi. THAT the said defendant’s official DAVID MUTHUNGU informed Applicant that they were making arrangements to pay him the said balance and once they were ready with the balance of the purchase price of Kshs. 80,000/= they would notify him to collect the payment.
vii. THAT on a subsequent meeting to follow up the payment of the balance with the said defendant’s official, DAVID MUTHUNGU he informed applicant that he should stop following up the payment and that they would call him when the same was ready.
viii. THAT after waiting in vain for the said payment, Applicant instructed his advocates to write to the defendant a demand letter. (Annexed herein and marked as exhibit JK-02 is a copy of the advocates’ letter dated 10th December 2016).
ix. THAT recently some strange people started coming to view his land and when he inquired from them on the purpose of their visit they informed him that they were buyers sent by the defendant to view the same.
x.THAT Applicant immediately visited the Land Registry to conduct a search on his said land and he was shell shocked to discover that the defendant had fraudulently transferred Applicant’s land into its name and obtained a title deed on 9th June 2017. (Annexed herein and marked as exhibit JK-03 is a copy of the search certificate).
xi. THAT Applicant never attended any Land Control Board meeting for consent to transfer the suit land to the defendant.
xii. THAT Applicant has built a 3bed roomed house, 2 roomed semi-permanent house, fenced, installed electricity, piped water, planted food crops on the said portion of the suit land and settled there with his family since year 2006. (Annexed herein and marked as exhibit JK-04 are photographs of the developments).
xiii. THAT Applicant and his family attach profound sentimental and economic value into the suit land and unless the Court intervenes his family and Applicant will be thrown out of the suit land and they shall be rendered destitute, landless or homeless as they have no other place to call home.
4. The application was served but no response was filed.
5. I find that the plaintiff has availed documents capturing the historical registration background of the suit land. He was once the registered owner of the land and perhaps he is the one in occupation of the suit land. There being no evidence to rebut the plaintiff’s averments, then I am inclined to allow the application.
6. The application of 25. 7.17 is allowed with no orders as to costs.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT MERU THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
CAJanet/Haway
Muthomi for Plaintiff/Applicant present
Hon. L.N.MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE