[2019] KEELC 4598 (KLR)
The court found that injunctive orders had already been granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, restraining interference with his possession of the suit property, and these orders had not been reviewed or varied. The plaintiff was already in possession and had constructed houses on the property. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 4598 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James Mburu; Defendant: James Mwangi Wainaina; Defendant: Second Defendant (not named)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 963 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Injunctive Relief, Land Ownership 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
James Mburu
Plaintiff
James Mwangi Wainaina
Defendant
Second Defendant (not named)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the second defendant is entitled to an injunction restraining the plaintiff from constructing on the suit property.
- 2 Whether the existence of prior injunctive orders in favour of the plaintiff precludes the grant of the orders sought by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that injunctive orders had already been granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, restraining interference with his possession of the suit property, and these orders had not been reviewed or varied. The plaintiff was already in possession and had constructed houses on the property. The application by the second defendant/applicant sought to restrain acts that had already occurred and, in effect, to evict the plaintiff before the substantive claim for adverse possession was determined. The court held that the application had no basis and dismissed it with costs to the plaintiff/respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent
Orders
- The application dated 26th February 2018 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ELC SUIT NO. 963 OF 2015[OS]
JAMES MBURU..................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMS MWANGI WAINAINA & ANOTHER............DEFENDANTS
RULING
1. This is a ruling in respect of a notice of motion dated 26th February 2018. The application is brought by the second defendant and it seeks an order of injunction restraining the plaintiff from constructing houses on LR No 13754 Karen in Nairobi (suit property). The second defendant/ applicant contends that he is the registered owner of the suit property but that the Plaintiff/Respondent invaded the same and has been constructing houses on the same claiming adverse possession.
2. The Plaintiff/Respondent has opposed the application through a replying affidavit sworn on 30th April 2018. The respondent contends that the application by the applicant lacks merit; that there are injunctive orders in force against the applicant which have never been reviewed and that the application cannot be granted in the circumstances.
3. I have considered the applicant’s application as well as the opposition to the same by the Plaintiff/Respondent. I have also considered the submissions by the applicant and the second respondent. The only issue for determination is whether an injunction can be granted in favour of the applicant as prayed.
4. The Plaintiff/Respondent had filed a suit against the second defendant /applicant and another person in which he sought adverse claim in respect of the suit property. He contemporaneously filed an application for injunction seeking to restrain the Defendants/ Respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The injunctive orders were granted as prayed on 16th December 2015 as there was no opposition to the same. The orders were given to last until the suit is heard and determined.
5. As at the time the injunctive orders were granted in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent, the respondent was in possession of the suit property and had already constructed houses where he was living. These orders have never been reviewed or varied. The applicant cannot therefore seek orders of injunction seeking to retrain what has already occurred. The applicant’s application for injunction has no basis. What the applicant seeks to achieve in case the application is granted is to evict the Plaintiff/Respondent before the claim for adverse possession is heard. I find no merit in the application which is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent.
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and delivered at Nairobion this 17thday of January 2019.
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of;-
M/s Wanjiku for Mr Njomo for Plaintiff/Respondent
Court Assistant: Hilda
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE