[2017] KEELC 861 (KLR)

[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
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Land Title Disputes Fraudulent Transfer Possession and Occupation

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kariuki

Plaintiff

Great Achiever Investment Group Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 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. 2 Whether an inhibition should be registered against L.R No. NTIMA/IGOKI/6035 to restrict dealings pending suit determination.
  3. 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...