[2017] KEELC 1103 (KLR)
The court found it premature to grant an injunction in the absence of verified boundaries and access road. Given the plaintiff's own suggestion and the lack of opposition from the defendant, the court determined that the most appropriate course was to have the District Land Surveyor and District Land Registrar...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1103 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Johnson Kipmutai Cheruiyot; Defendant: Oliver Kipmutai
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 261 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Application for injunction deferred; orders issued for boundary verification.
- Judges
- MA Silau
- Legal Topics
- Boundary Disputes, Land Encroachment, Access Rights
- 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
Johnson Kipmutai Cheruiyot
Plaintiff
Oliver Kipmutai
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an injunction against the defendant.
- 2 Whether the defendant has encroached on the plaintiff's land parcels Nakuru/Nessuit Settlement Scheme/1998 and 1999.
- 3 Whether the boundaries and access road to the plaintiff's land require verification by a surveyor.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found it premature to grant an injunction in the absence of verified boundaries and access road. Given the plaintiff's own suggestion and the lack of opposition from the defendant, the court determined that the most appropriate course was to have the District Land Surveyor and District Land Registrar establish or re-establish the boundaries of the disputed parcels and verify the existence of the access road. The court held that only after such verification could it properly determine whether an injunction or other substantive relief was warranted. The plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the survey exercise, and the officers were directed to file a report within 30 days.
Court Disposition
Application for injunction deferred; orders issued for boundary verification.
Orders
- The District Land Surveyor and District Land Registrar to proceed to the ground and establish or re-establish the boundaries of land parcels Nakuru/Nessuit Settlement Scheme/1998 and 1999.
- The two officers to make a ground report and advise whether there has been any encroachment by the defendant, and if so, the extent and nature of such encroachment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
ELC NO. 261 OF 2017
JOHNSON KIPMUTAI CHERUIYOT.....................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
OLIVER KIPMUTAI…………………..…………..DEFENDANT
RULING
(Application for injunction; plaintiff owning certain land and claiming that the defendant who is his neighbor has encroached into them; in his application for injunction plaintiff also suggesting that the boundaries be affixed by a surveyor; best to have the boundaries affixed; order that District Land Registrar and District Surveyor to establish the boundaries and file a report on the alleged encroachment)
1. This suit was commenced by way of plaint filed on 27 June 2017. Together with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application for injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from the suit properties, which are Nakuru/Nessuit Settlement Scheme/1998 and 1999, pending the hearing and determination of this case. It is that application for injunction which is the subject of this ruling. Despite being served, the defendant did not enter appearance and neither did he file anything to oppose the motion. He was also not present at the hearing of the application. It follows therefore that the only material that I have is that presented by the plaintiff.
2. This being an application for injunction, I stand guided by the principles laid down in the case of Giella vs Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358. It was held in the said case that to succeed in an application for injunction, one needs to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success; show that he/she stands to suffer irreparable loss unless the injunction is granted; and where the court is in doubt, it will decide the application on a balance of convenience.
3. The plaintiff's case is that he is the legal owner of the suit properties. He has averred that the defendant is his neighbor and that he has encroached into the suit properties and closed the plaintiff's access road. He has claimed that the defendant has been hostile to him claiming that the land belongs to the Ogiek community and not the plaintiff. It is alleged that in the year 2013, the defendant sent thugs to beat up the plaintiff leading to him suffering injuries. In his application and supporting affidavit, the plaintiff seems to suggest that the problem will be resolved if I am to send a surveyor and the boundaries of the parcels of land and the access road determined.
4. Having gone through the material of the plaintiff, and his proposal to have the boundaries picked, I think it is premature for me to issue any order of injunction against the defendant. In my view, the best order to make is to have the boundaries of the properties of the plaintiff confirmed and also it be verified whether indeed there exists a road of access as claimed by the plaintiff.
5. I therefore make the following orders :-
(i) That the District Land Surveyor and District Land Registrar, to proceed to the ground and establish or re-establish the boundaries of the land parcels Nakuru/Nessuit Settlement Scheme/1998 and 1999.
(ii) That the two officers to make a ground report and advise whether or not there has been any encroachment by the defendant, and if so, the extent and nature of such encroachment, into the land parcels Nakuru/Nessuit Settlement Scheme/1998 and 1999.
(iii) That this order be served forthwith by the plaintiff and the survey exercise be done and the report be filed within 30 days of service of this order.
(iv) That the plaintiff do shoulder the costs of the exercise be shouldered by the plaintiff.
6. It is so ordered and directed.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this 4TH day of October 2017.
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
AT NAKURU
In presence of :-
Ms. Wanuma for the plaintiff/applicant
No appearance on the part of the defendant/respondent
Court assistant: Toroitich Carlton
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
AT NAKURU