[2007] KEHC 2347 (KLR)
The court found that although the plaintiff does not reside on the suit land, there is a risk that leasing or selling the land to third parties could complicate the pending suit for adverse possession. To preserve the subject matter and prevent prejudice, the court determined that the balance of convenience favored...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2347 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joseph Nduati Mumu; Defendant: Peter Mukunya Mumu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 984 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Injunctive Relief, Land 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
Joseph Nduati Mumu
Plaintiff
Peter Mukunya Mumu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with LR Loc. 19/Gacharageini/587 pending the hearing of the suit.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff's occupation and use of the land constitutes adverse possession warranting protection by injunction.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors the issuance of an injunction to prevent third-party interference with the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the plaintiff does not reside on the suit land, there is a risk that leasing or selling the land to third parties could complicate the pending suit for adverse possession. To preserve the subject matter and prevent prejudice, the court determined that the balance of convenience favored granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land until the originating summons is heard and determined. The court was not satisfied that the plaintiff had demonstrated actual residence, but considered the potential for third-party involvement as a sufficient ground to maintain the status quo.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff.
Orders
- An injunction is issued restraining the defendant from interfering with LR Loc. 19/Gacharageini/587 pending the hearing of the Originating Summons.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 984 of 2006
JOSEPH NDUATI MUMU……….....……………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PETER MUKUNYA MUMU……….…………………….DEFENDANT
RULING
1: Background of application for Injunction dated 18. 9.2006
1. The Plaintiff herein stated that the suit land known as LR Loc. 19/Gacharageini/587 was registered in the name of his brother Peter Mukunya Mumu the defendant herein. That their late father informed the defendant to give him one acre of the land. The defendant agreed and went further to say, if the defendant could sell his portion remaining in the land for Ksh.70,000/-.
2. The plaintiff agreed to this and paid Kshs.70,000/-. The plaintiff planted tea on the suit land. This occurred sometime in 1984, when their late father passed away and thereafter.
3. The plaintiff saw, in 2006 people walking within the said area. They then appeared to be inspecting the land to purchase. He – the plaintiff filed this suit for adverse possession and then prayed through an injunction for orders to restrain the said defendant from selling the land. That he acquired the premises through adverse possession.
4. The question arises - should an injunction issue restraining the defendant from dealing with the said land?
5. In reply the defendant stated that the arrangements had been for the plaintiff to look after their ageing mother of 106 years old. That the plaintiff was to support their old mother by planting tea on the suit land and the proceeds would be used on the said mother. In 2003, the defendant realized the plaintiff’s family was mistreating their mother. He then removed the mother to live with him. At such, the land was intended to be leased out by him. Instead the plaintiff filed this suit fearing he would no longer have an income.
6. The plaintiff’s prayer for an injunction should therefore be dismissed
and not be allowed has therefore been prayed.
II. Findings
7. The Plaintiff does not live on the suit land. There is nothing to show this. A house was built in 2000 but the defendants disputes this and says it was in 2003. The house belongs to the son of the plaintiff.
8. Should an injunction be issued? As the probability of a third party being brought into lease the land may complicate this case, I am of the view that injunctions do issue restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land pending the hearing of the Originating Summons herein.
9. There will be costs to the Plaintiff.
Dated this 16th day of May, 2007 at Nairobi.
M.A. Ang’awa
JUDGE
Advocates:
S.K. Gichigi for Gichigi Burugu & Co. Advocates or the plaintiff/applicant - present
T.M. Kuria, holding brief for M. Marete for Kinoti & Kibe Co. Advocates for the defendant - present