[2009] KEHC 1892 (KLR)
The court found that the application for injunction sought the same reliefs as those in the main suit and that the issues raised required a full trial on the material facts. Additionally, there was no affidavit of service on record to confirm that the respondents had been served with the application. As such, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1892 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Kipkemoi Tonui; Plaintiff: Joel Kiplangat Tonui; Plaintiff: Ismael Kiprono Tonui; Respondent: Samwel Tonui; Respondent: Philip Tonui
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 45 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Land Subdivision, 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
John Kipkemoi Tonui
Plaintiff
Joel Kiplangat Tonui
Plaintiff
Ismael Kiprono Tonui
Plaintiff
Samwel Tonui
Respondent
Philip Tonui
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the use of the sub-divided land.
- 2 Whether the application for injunction seeks the same reliefs as the main suit and should be determined at full trial.
- 3 Whether there is sufficient proof of service of process on the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for injunction sought the same reliefs as those in the main suit and that the issues raised required a full trial on the material facts. Additionally, there was no affidavit of service on record to confirm that the respondents had been served with the application. As such, the court declined to grant the interlocutory injunction and dismissed the application, directing that the applicants should proceed to the main suit once the defendants are properly served.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for injunction is dismissed.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
Civil Case 45 of 2009
1. JOHN KIPKEMOI TONUI ……………………………}1ST PLAINTIFF
2. JOEL KIPLANGAT TONUI ………………………….}2ND PLAINTIFF
3. ISMAEL KIPRONO TONUI ….………………………}3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. SAMWEL TONUI ……...…………………………..} 1ST RESPONDENT
2. PHILIP TONUI ……….....…………………………} 2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
Application for injunction dated 25th May, 2009
I: Background
1. Original land parcel Kericho/Getarwet/45 was registered and or owned by one Samwel Kiptonui Arap Chepkwony. He is alive and not deceased. The said owner is not party to this suit.
2. On the 14th January, 1991 a land dispute case was held whereby the said Samuel Kiptonui Arap Chekwony had informed the elders that he had two houses and thirteen (13) sons. Any son who had moneys to sub –divide and pay for the surveyor to his land he would accordingly apportion that son land. So far only three sons complied. The other ten failed to do so.
3. The said Samuel Kiptonui Arap Chekwony then said those sons unable to so make payments should be under his guardianship.
4. The tribunal agreed with him and took the position not to interfere with the said old man as to his wishes when alive.
5. The other sons wanted the property to be divided equally amongst the two houses. The old man had outlined a division he did using a hedge. Any difference would be compensated with other properties that he had.
6. An application for an injunction restraining the defendants was issued. This was due to the fact that the two respondents were interfering with the use of the land already sub-divided.
7. I am of the opinion that a full trial should be heard on the material facts. The reasons being that the application seeks the very same prayers in the main suit.
8. It is said the respondents had been served and are left to file there defence and enter appearance. There is no affidavit of service to show proof of such service on this courts file.
9. Accordingly I dismiss this application with the costs being in the cause.
10. The applicants should proceed to the main suit on this matter on the defendants being served.
DATED this 15th day of June, 2009 at KERICHO
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocates
V.K. Bii advocate instructed by M/s. V.K. Bii & Co. Advocates
for the Plaintiffs/Applicants-present
N/A for the Defendants/Respondents