[2020] KEELC 2798 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2798 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants' only relationship to the suit land was as children of the respondent and that their apprehension of exclusion from the land's subdivision was not supported by concrete evidence. The applicants had moved onto the land without the respondent's consent and denied him and other...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 2798 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Ratika Koini; Applicant: Joseph Lemayian Koini; Applicant: Allan Supeyo Koini; Respondent: Samson Kipas Ole Koini
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 25 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
MN Kullow
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Ancestral Land Disputes, Family Property Rights
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Temporary Injunctions Ancestral Land Disputes Family Property Rights

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Ratika Koini

Applicant

Joseph Lemayian Koini

Applicant

Allan Supeyo Koini

Applicant

Samson Kipas Ole Koini

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit land.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' only relationship to the suit land was as children of the respondent and that their apprehension of exclusion from the land's subdivision was not supported by concrete evidence. The applicants had moved onto the land without the respondent's consent and denied him and other children access, which the court found to be conduct inconsistent with seeking equitable relief. The applicants failed to satisfy the conditions for the grant of an injunction, particularly the requirement of a prima facie case and coming to court with clean hands. Accordingly, the application for a temporary injunction was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 29th October, 2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.