[2015] KEELC 331 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff, though lacking a certificate of title, had demonstrated a prima facie interest in the suit property through documentary evidence including an allotment letter and sale agreement. The defendant failed to file any response or present evidence of a competing right. The court held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELC 331 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joel Kimutai Tuiya; Defendant: Mathew Kipkurui Too
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 243 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application for injunction allowed
- Judges
- MA Silau
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Allocation of Land, Ownership Disputes, Trespass, Prima Facie Case
- 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
Joel Kimutai Tuiya
Plaintiff
Mathew Kipkurui Too
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours the preservation of the suit property pending determination of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff, though lacking a certificate of title, had demonstrated a prima facie interest in the suit property through documentary evidence including an allotment letter and sale agreement. The defendant failed to file any response or present evidence of a competing right. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the property and preventing further development or waste by the defendant pending the full hearing. Accordingly, the application for interlocutory injunction was allowed to maintain the status quo until the suit is determined.
Court Disposition
application for injunction allowed
Orders
- The defendant is restrained from entering, being upon, or developing any structure on Plot No. 79 at Simotwet Trading Centre until the hearing and determination of the case.
- Costs of the application shall be costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
ELC NO 243 OF 2014
JOEL KIMUTAI TUIYA ………………….………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MATHEW KIPKURUI TOO………………...…….DEFENDANT
RULING
(Application for injunction; application not opposed; application allowed).
1. The suit herein was commenced by way of plaint filed on 28 August 2014. On 3 October 2014, the plaintiff filed an application dated 9 September 2014, which is the subject of this ruling. The application is for injunction and it is filed pursuant to the provisions of Order 40 Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. Despite being served with the pleadings and application, the defendant has neither entered appearance, filed any defence, or reply to the application. Neither did he attend at the inter partes hearing of the application despite being served. The only material before me is therefore that tendered by the plaintiff.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that in the year 2000, he was allocated a Plot No. 79A at Simotwet Trading Centre, while one Musa Kirogu (not a party to these proceedings), was allocated a Plot No. 79B. In the year 2006, the plaintiff purchased the plot No. 79B from Musa Kirogu, and later merged the two plots into a Plot No.79. On 6 November 2011, he was issued with a letter of allotment by the County Council of Nakuru. It is averred that in the month of September 2013, the defendant without any justification, invaded the Plot No. 79 and started constructing a pit latrine. The plaintiff reported the matter to the area Chief as well as the County Council of Nakuru and the defendant was ordered to desist from interfering with the plot. The defendant stopped his actions temporarily, but came back and continued with his activities. In the suit, the plaintiff wants a declaration that the suit property belongs to him, and a permanent injunction to stop the defendant from trespassing into the said plot.
3. To the supporting affidavit, the plaintiff attached an allocation list which he says shows the persons allotted the plots No. 79A and 79B; an agreement between himself and one Tue Kirogu; an allotment letter for the Plot No. 79 dated November 2011; payment receipts for rates; and photographs of the site. The supposed allocation list is handwritten and does not have any official stamp. I am not too certain of its authenticity, but I can see the names of the plaintiff and Musa Kirogu, against the Plot numbers 79A and 79B. I have also seen the agreement between Tue Kirugo and the plaintiff wherein the former sold to the latter the plot No. 79B at a consideration of Kshs. 40,000/= on 11 July 2006. I have also taken note of the letter dated 6 November 2011 which is drawn by the County Council of Nakuru. It is a letter stating that the plaintiff has been allocated the Plot No. 79.
4. The plaintiff may not have a certificate of title to the land, but I think he has shown, prima facie that he has an interest in it. More importantly, the defendant has not filed anything to demonstrate that he has any right over the suit property. From the evidence tabled at this stage of the proceedings, I think the plaintiff has shown a prima facie case. In any event, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of preserving the property and not allowing the defendant to waste it.
5. For the above reasons, I allow the application for injunction. I order the defendant not to enter, be upon, or develop any structure, on the Plot No. 79 situated at Simotwet Trading Centre, until the hearing and determination of this case. The costs of this application shall be costs in the cause.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this 16th day of June 2015.
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT NAKURU
In presence of : -
Mr Biko holding brief for Mr Akang’o for the plaintiff/applicant.
N/A for defendant who has not entered appearance.
CA: Janet.
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT NAKURU