[2016] KEHC 2873 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an inhibition order. The properties in question were registered in the defendant's name allegedly in trust for the plaintiffs, who had developed and occupied the land. The defendant, despite being served, did not contest the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2873 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jonah Mwirigi Murungi; Plaintiff: Benjamin Mwiti Murungi; Plaintiff: Sarah Kendi Murungi; Plaintiff: Jane Wanja Murungi; Defendant: Peter Murungi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 145 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Inhibition order granted.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Land Inhibition Orders, Trusts Over Land, Interlocutory Injunctions
- 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
Jonah Mwirigi Murungi
Plaintiff
Benjamin Mwiti Murungi
Plaintiff
Sarah Kendi Murungi
Plaintiff
Jane Wanja Murungi
Plaintiff
Peter Murungi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for the grant of an inhibition order over the suit properties.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the inhibition order is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the inhibition order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an inhibition order. The properties in question were registered in the defendant's name allegedly in trust for the plaintiffs, who had developed and occupied the land. The defendant, despite being served, did not contest the application. The court was satisfied that unless the inhibition order was granted, the plaintiffs risked being rendered landless and the suit rendered nugatory. The balance of convenience favoured the preservation of the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit. Accordingly, the court granted the inhibition order as sought in prayer 3 of the application.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Inhibition order granted.
Orders
- An order of inhibition is issued inhibiting any dealings whatsoever with land parcel numbers 5206, 5377 and 10209/Amwathi/Maua until this suit is heard and determined.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
ENVIRONMENTAL & LAND CASE NO 145 OF 2016
JONAH MWIRIG MURUNGI …..............................1ST PLAINTIFF
BENJAMIN MWITI MURUNGI …..........................2ND PLAINTIFF
SARAH KENDI MURUNGI …...............................3RD PLAINTIFF
JANE WANJA MURUNGI......................................4TH PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PETER MURUNGI...................................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. This application is dated 29/08/2016 and seeks orders:-
(1)THAT the application herein be certified urgent and be heard exparte in the 1st instance.
(2) THAT the honourable Court do issue an order of inhibition inhibiting any dealings whatsoever with land parcel numbers 5206, 5377 and 10209/Amwathi/Maua until this application is heard and determined.
(3) THAT the Honourable Court do issue an order of inhibition inhibiting any dealings whatsoever with land parcel numbers 5206, 5377 and 10209/Amwathi/Maua until this suit is heard and determined.
(4) THAT costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the Affidavit of JONAH MWIRIGI MURUNGU, the 1st Plaintiff and has the following grounds:-
a) THAT the suit properties are registered in the name of the defendant to hold it in trust for the Plaintiffs who are his sons and daughters.
b) THAT the Plaintiff have extensively developed the suit land where their homesteads and other developments stand.
c) THAT the defendant has threatened and he is in process of disposing off/selling the suit lands.
d) THAT unless the sought orders herein are granted the Plaintiff will be rendered landless and their suit rendered a nugatory.
3. When the application was slated for hearing on 13/09/2016, the Defendant was not in Court. Mr. Mutembei for the Applicants told the Court that the Defendant had been properly served with the date for the hearing of the application interpartes. He referred the Court to the apposite affidavit of service. In the Circumstances, he requested the Court to allow the application.
4. In the absence of the Defendant/Respondent and despite service, I deem the application heard. It is allowed.
5. Prayer 3 is granted.
6. Costs shall be in cause.
7. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016 IN THE PRESENCES OF:-
CC: Lilian/Daniel
Miss Muna h/b Mutembei for Plaintiff
P.M NJOROGE
JUDGE