[2016] KEELC 364 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 364 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's request for a mandatory injunction and eviction at the interlocutory stage was not justified. The prayers in the notice of motion were identical to those in the main suit, and granting them would effectively determine the main suit without a full hearing. The respondents were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 364 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Anangwe Omuruya; Respondent: Aneriko Juma Machengo; Respondent: Asman Omusikoyo Saka; Respondent: Philip Hagai Ambani
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 68 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction and Eviction Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction Orders, Mandatory Injunctions, Prima Facie Case, Interlocutory Relief
Source Language
en
Land and Property Eviction Orders Mandatory Injunctions Prima Facie Case Interlocutory Relief

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Anangwe Omuruya

Applicant

Aneriko Juma Machengo

Respondent

Asman Omusikoyo Saka

Respondent

Philip Hagai Ambani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction and Eviction Order

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a possibility of success for a mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's request for a mandatory injunction and eviction at the interlocutory stage was not justified. The prayers in the notice of motion were identical to those in the main suit, and granting them would effectively determine the main suit without a full hearing. The respondents were already in occupation before the applicant became the registered owner, and the circumstances did not present the clearest of cases required for a mandatory injunction at this stage. Both parties should be given an opportunity to be heard fully before any eviction order is considered. Consequently, the application was dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 16th May 2016 is dismissed with costs in the cause.