[2021] KEELC 3969 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3969 (KLR)

The court found that its earlier orders of 23rd November, 2017 were ambiguous, as they appeared to grant both temporary and permanent injunctions at the interlocutory stage, contrary to the applicable legal standards. The court clarified that only a temporary injunction was intended, restraining the defendant from...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 3969 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Kariuki Njuguna; Plaintiff: Esther Wanjiku Ndungu; Defendant: Mwanzo Development Company Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 97 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
application for review allowed in part; previous orders clarified to grant only temporary injunction; costs to applicant
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Review of Court Orders, Land Title Transfer
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Review of Court Orders Land Title Transfer

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Kariuki Njuguna

Applicant

Esther Wanjiku Ndungu

Plaintiff

Mwanzo Development Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Orders

  1. 1 Whether the court orders issued on 23rd November, 2017 contained errors requiring review.
  2. 2 Whether the Land Registrar can issue title documents to the 1st Plaintiff in light of the existing court orders.
  3. 3 Whether the orders granted were interlocutory or final in nature.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that its earlier orders of 23rd November, 2017 were ambiguous, as they appeared to grant both temporary and permanent injunctions at the interlocutory stage, contrary to the applicable legal standards. The court clarified that only a temporary injunction was intended, restraining the defendant from dealing with the suit properties pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The court held that the permanent injunction and the order directing the Registrar to execute transfer documents could only be granted after viva voce evidence at the full hearing. The court therefore reviewed and clarified its previous orders to reflect only the grant of a temporary injunction...

Court Disposition

application for review allowed in part; previous orders clarified to grant only temporary injunction; costs to applicant

Orders

  • The Defendant is restrained by way of injunction from disposing, selling, offering for sale, sub-dividing, charging, transferring or in any way interfering with Title No. Mavoko Town Block 2/2506 and Mavoko Town Block 2/2537 (Plot Nos. 378 & 379 JKIA PHASE 5) pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
  • The costs of the Application dated 6th March, 2017 to be paid by the Defendant.