[2016] KEHC 2941 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the suit land, Kakamega/Bugonda/2069, and that there was no evidence before the court to show that the land was held in trust for the respondents or that the applicant was not entitled to exclusive use. The respondents, despite being given an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2941 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Johnstone Ogada Vikiru; Defendant: Jonathan Mahugi; Defendant: Fredrick Bwoyela; Defendant: Francis Ambani
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 163 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Burial Rights, 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
Johnstone Ogada Vikiru
Plaintiff
Jonathan Mahugi
Defendant
Fredrick Bwoyela
Defendant
Francis Ambani
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the burial of Nathan Kaduka on parcel Kakamega/Bugonda/2069.
- 2 Whether the applicant is the registered owner of the suit land and entitled to exclusive use.
- 3 Whether the respondents have any legal right or trust over the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the suit land, Kakamega/Bugonda/2069, and that there was no evidence before the court to show that the land was held in trust for the respondents or that the applicant was not entitled to exclusive use. The respondents, despite being given an opportunity, failed to file any affidavits or evidence in opposition. The court held that the applicant had met the threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown. Accordingly, the applicant was entitled to an order restraining the respondents from burying the body of Nathan Kaduka on the applicant's land pending the determination of the suit.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- A temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants, their agents, employees, servants, personal representatives or anybody from burying the body of Nathan Kaduka on parcel Kakamega/Bugonda/2069 pending the determination of the suit.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA.
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA.
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE NO. 163 OF 2016.
JOHNSTONE OGADA VIKIRU………….............………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS.
JONATHAN MAHUGI……………………………….…...1ST DEFENDANT
FREDRICK BWOYELA………………………………….2ND DEFENDANT
FRANCIS AMBANI………………………...………….....3RD DEFENDANT
RULING.
[1]. The applicants herein filed this application dated 30th August 2016 under Order 40 rule 1 Section 3, 3A and 6(e) of the Civil Procedure Rules Act Cap 21 Laws of Kenya. They pray for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents employees servants, personal representative or anybody from burying the body of NATHAN KADUKA on the applicant’s Parcel of land registration number Kakamega/Bugonda/2069 pending the determination of the suit. The application was supported on the grounds therein.
[2]. The application was supported by the affidavit of Johnstone Ogada Vikiru who swore that he is the registered owner of Kakamega/Bugonda/2069. He swore that he knew that Nathan Kaduka died and his body was preserved at St. Elizabeth Mukumu Hospital awaiting burial. That his sons have forcefully erected a temporary house on the applicants land purporting it to belong to the deceased. The applicant swears that the sons of the deceased have their own lands which they can freely bury their father. He argues that it is in the interest of Justice that the respondent should be restrained.
[3]. The respondents were served with the Plaint, the application and the orders of this Court. They appeared through D.C. Chitwah & Co. Advocates who filed grounds of opposition on 8th September, 2016. The grounds said that the application was an abuse of the process of the Court that the applicant had not come to Court with clean hands, that the applicant was the registered owner of Kakamega/Bugonda/2069 in trust for the respondents and that the application does not meet the principles of granting an injunction. On the 2nd September the defendant filed a notice of motion under order 40 rule 7 and order 2 rule 15 and Sections 3A 3 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules praying that the orders of this Court of 30/8/2016 be reviewed and the Plaint filed on 30/8/2016 be struck out and that St. Elizabeth Mukumu Hospital Mortuary do release the body of NATHAN KADUKA.
The parties appeared in Court on 6/9/2016 and agreed that those applications be consolidated and be heard together on 14/9/2016 and parties through their advocates be given leave to file their replies and responses. On the 9th of September, 2016 the respondents filed a notice to Act in Person.
[4]. The matter came for hearing on 14/9/2016. The respondents had filed no papers. The applicant told the Court that he was the registered owner of the land. That the respondents have their own lands. That the deceased had his own land which he sold. He annexed the title of his land showing he is the registered proprietor. He said that there is clan land where the deceased should be buried. The respondents had nothing else to say.
This application is not opposed by the respondents who were given an opportunity to file their Affidavits in opposition and have not done so. There is nothing in Court to show that the land is held in trust or that it does not belong to the applicant. The law allows the applicant to exclusive use of his land. I allow the applicant’s application with no orders as to costs.
Ruling read in Open Court In the presence of the parties.
Dated, Signed and delivered on 29th September, 2016
S. MUKUNYA
JUDGE.
In the presence of:
Court Assistant: Joy
Plaintiff: Present
Defendants: Present