[2006] KEHC 1543 (KLR)
The court found that although the plaintiff is the registered absolute proprietor of the suit land, the defendants have raised serious allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and overriding interests based on actual occupation. The plaintiff did not respond to these allegations. Section 30 of the Registered Land...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1543 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John K. Lokorio; Defendant: Leonard Wanyama and 8 others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 19 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application (ruling on Interim Injunction)
- Outcome
- Interim restraining orders declined; status quo to be maintained pending full hearing.
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Registered Land Title, Overriding Interests, Fraud in Land Acquisition
- 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
John K. Lokorio
Plaintiff
Leonard Wanyama and 8 others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application (ruling on Interim Injunction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim restraining orders against the defendants regarding the suit land pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the defendants' occupation and use of the land constitutes an overriding interest under Section 30 of the Registered Land Act.
- 3 Whether allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by the plaintiff in acquiring the title deed warrant denial of interim relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the plaintiff is the registered absolute proprietor of the suit land, the defendants have raised serious allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and overriding interests based on actual occupation. The plaintiff did not respond to these allegations. Section 30 of the Registered Land Act recognizes the rights of persons in possession as overriding interests. Given the sensitivity of land issues and the need for oral evidence to resolve the disputed facts, the court held that it would not be just to grant interim restraining orders at this interlocutory stage. The balance of convenience required maintaining the status quo until a full hearing could determine...
Court Disposition
Interim restraining orders declined; status quo to be maintained pending full hearing.
Orders
- The application for interim restraining orders is declined.
- Status quo to be maintained until the full hearing and determination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Civil Suit 19 of 2006
JOHN K. LOKORIO………………................................................................…………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LEONARD WANYAMA AND 8 OTHERS…..........................................................……..DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
The Plaintiff in this suit John K. Lokorio filed a suit and simultenously sought for interim orders by way of a Chamber Summons dated 24th January, 2006.
The Plaintiff sought for orders restraining the 1st to 9th defendants from entering, ploughing, wasting, alienating, using or from interfering with his peaceful and quiet enjoyment of all that piece of land known as Nakuru/Ngongoreri/1 measuring 23. 5 Hectares or there about pending the hearing and determination of his suit.
The grounds upon which this application is predicated are well stipulated in the body of the application and were more specifically expounded in the Supporting Affidavit. I wish to summerize the gist of the matters deponed to in the Supporting Affidavit.
The Plaintiff is the registered owner of the land known as Nakuru/Ngongeri/1 measuring 23. 5 Hectares and annexes a copy of the Title Deed dated 5th June,2000. The Plaintiff alleges that the sometimes in the year 2005, the defendants unlawfully entered the suit land and started ploughing the same and erecting some temporary structures on the said land thus hampering and interfering with his peaceful occupation of the suit premises.
The defendants filed a replying Affidavit on 15thFebruary, 2006, sworn by Leonard Wanyama the1st Defendant who claims to have the authority of the other defendants. The defendants allege that they were shocked to lean that “the Appellant has fraudulently registered himself as the owner of the land.” The defendants claim that the land was allocated to them alongside other squatters numbering 165 in 1995, by the Former President of the Country they having been landless and former employees of the said Farm Ngongeri Farm. They claim to have taken a small portion of land each in 1997 where they have been cultivating. They accuse the plaintiff who was then working as the Comptroller of State House of colluding with the then Commissioner of Lands one Sammy Muita and misusing their respective offices to take over and subdivide the land amongst the two of them each getting 23. 5 hectares.
The respondent denied that the appellants have taken possession of the suit premises but merely intends to evict the defendants before the dispute is determined.
The Plaintiff is the Registered absolute proprietor of the suit premises. The plaintiff has exhibited a copy of the Title Deed to prove ownership which ws issued to him on 5th June, 2000.
The circumstances of how the applicant acquired this title are not given by the applicant. Section 30 of the Registered LandsAct provides for whatare recognized overriding interest over the rights of an absolute proprietor.
According to Section 30:-
“Unless the contrary is expressed in theregister, all registered land shall be subjectto sum of the following overriding interestsas may for the time being subsist and affectthe same, without their being noted on theregister:-
(a)…
(b)the rights of a person in possession oractual occupation of land to which heis entitled in right only of such possession or occupation, save where inquiryis made of such person and the namesare not disclosed.”
The Defendants have pleaded misrepresentation, fraud and misuse of office on the part of the plaintiff in the acquisition of the said Title. They have further alleged that the plaintiff is not in occupation of the suit premises and that it is they the defendants who have been in occupation. The Plaintiff has not made any response to the said allegations. Although the Plaintiff is an absolute owner of the property by virtue of the Title, the Title of such an owner can only be subject to challenge on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation to which the owner is proved to be a party.
At this interlocutory stage this court takes judicial notice of the fact that land is a very sensitive issue especially in the circumstances such as in this case. For the balance of convenience, I wish to adjourn this matter until the matter is fully heard by way of oral evidence in regard to allegations raised by the defendants.
I decline to grant the restraining orders and direct that the status quo be maintained and the matter be given a priority hearing date in the registry for the full hearing and determination of the issues in controversy.
Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED ON THIS 5TH DAY MAY, 2006
MARTHA KOOME
JUDGE