[2018] KEELC 4456 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4456 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success as required for the grant of a temporary injunction. The Plaintiff's claim was based on the assertion that the suit land belonged to his late father, but the official search indicated that the registered...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 4456 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: John Onduto Ating’o; Defendant: Stephen Ndonga; Defendant: Chief of South Nyakach Location
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 198 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant.
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Locus Standi, Ownership Disputes, Probate and Administration
Source Language
en
Land and Property Temporary Injunctions Locus Standi Ownership Disputes Probate and Administration

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

John Onduto Ating’o

Plaintiff

Stephen Ndonga

Defendant

Chief of South Nyakach Location

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff has established a reasonable case with a probability of success for a temporary injunction order to issue as prayed.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success as required for the grant of a temporary injunction. The Plaintiff's claim was based on the assertion that the suit land belonged to his late father, but the official search indicated that the registered proprietors were five other individuals, none of whom were the Plaintiff or his late father. The Plaintiff did not provide documentary evidence linking the suit land to his father's estate, nor did he hold a grant in respect of the estates of the registered proprietors. The court held that without such evidence, the Plaintiff lacked the capacity to sustain the suit and the application...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant.

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 8th August 2016 is dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant.