[2009] KEHC 503 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff raised a substantial issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Land Dispute Tribunal to order the cancellation of his title and transfer of the land to the defendant. This jurisdictional challenge constituted a prima facie case with a probability of success. Given the risk of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 503 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joseph Njugu Muriuki; Defendant: James Ngari Ibrahim Gichohi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 285 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Land Ownership Disputes, Jurisdiction of Tribunals
- 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 Njugu Muriuki
Plaintiff
James Ngari Ibrahim Gichohi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the Land Dispute Tribunal had jurisdiction to order cancellation of the plaintiff's title and transfer to the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff raised a substantial issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Land Dispute Tribunal to order the cancellation of his title and transfer of the land to the defendant. This jurisdictional challenge constituted a prima facie case with a probability of success. Given the risk of eviction and disposal of the suit land, the court determined that it was just and equitable to preserve the status quo by restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession or disposing of the land pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Orders
- Pending the hearing and final determination of this suit, the defendant by himself, his servants, relatives and/or agents are hereby restrained from going onto or evicting the plaintiff from the suit piece of land or in any way disposing of it.
- The costs of this application shall be costs in cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Civil Suit 285 of 2009
JOSEPH NJUGU MURIUKI.…………………...…PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMES NGARI IBRAHIM GICHOHI……...….DEFENDANT
RULING
Both the plaintiff and the defendant were or may still be shareholders of Kieni East Farmers Ltd. They both also claim to have balloted for the piece of land known as Laikipia/Salama Mukuru Block 4/790.
The plaintiff obtained title to that piece of land earlier. The defendant claiming the same piece of land filed a claim before Rumuruti Land Dispute Tribunal which after hearing the case decreed the cancellation of the plaintiff’s title and ordered that the defendant be issued with title to that piece of land. After the award was confirmed by the subordinate court at Nyahururu the defendant got it implemented and got a title deed issued in his name.
The plaintiff has filed this suit to challenge the Tribunal’s said decision. Contemporaneous with the filing of the suit he filed an application for injunction to restrain the defendant from evicting him from the suit land or in any way disposing of it. His counsel, Mr. Karanja, submitted that with the title deed in his hand, the defendant is now threatening to evict the plaintiff from the piece suit of land and may dispose of it thereby complicating the matter. He urged me to allow the application.
The defendant on the other hand opposed the application contending that this is one of the delaying tactics of the plaintiff. He said that the plaintiff’s counsel was before the subordinate court at Nyahururu when the award was adopted and should have appealed against it instead of filing this suit. He urged me to dismiss the application so that he may reap the fruits of his decree.
This being an interlocutory application I am not supposed to make any definitive findings as I have not heard the matter. However, having considered the application I find that a substantial issue on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to grant the order it did has been raised. I am therefore satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case with a probability of success. In the circumstances I grant this application and order that pending the hearing and final determination of this suit the defendant by himself, his servants, relatives and/or agents are hereby restrained from going onto or evicting the plaintiff from the suit piece of land or in any way disposing of it. The costs of this application shall be costs in cause. The main case to be heard on 9/3/2010 by which time the parties should have completed discovery.
DATED and delivered this 17th day of November, 2009.
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE.