[2017] KEELC 3758 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3758 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case by producing documentary evidence of ownership of the disputed land parcel. The respondent's actions—trespassing, erecting structures, and pouring building materials—constituted a violation of the applicant's proprietary rights and threatened to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3758 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jeremiah Ahuna Amulioto; Respondent: Raphael Omulanda
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 113 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Trespass to Land, Ownership Disputes, Prima Facie Case
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Trespass to Land Ownership Disputes Prima Facie Case

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

Jeremiah Ahuna Amulioto

Applicant

Raphael Omulanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Interim Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of an interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case by producing documentary evidence of ownership of the disputed land parcel. The respondent's actions—trespassing, erecting structures, and pouring building materials—constituted a violation of the applicant's proprietary rights and threatened to cause irreparable harm that could not be adequately compensated by damages. The respondent failed to oppose the application or provide any justification for his conduct. Applying the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, and that interim injunctive relief was warranted to preserve the status quo pending...

Court Disposition

interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, the respondent and his agents are restrained from carrying out any construction or trespassing on land parcel No. E. BUNYORE/EMAKUNDA/1223.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.