[2000] KEHC 185 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had produced a valid title deed and certificate of search confirming ownership of the suit land, establishing a prima facie case with a probability of success. The 2nd respondent's actions in fencing off and interfering with the land, absent any evidence to the contrary, amounted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 185 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joseph Waweru Mwangi; Defendant: The Attorney General; Defendant: Chief of Kinari Location (Lari Division)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 2214 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- JK Mulwa
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Land Ownership, Title Deeds, Trespass, Removal of Structures
- 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 Waweru Mwangi
Plaintiff
The Attorney General
Defendant
Chief of Kinari Location (Lari Division)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering with the suit land.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated ownership of the land sufficient to warrant injunctive relief.
- 3 Whether the 2nd respondent's actions amount to trespass.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had produced a valid title deed and certificate of search confirming ownership of the suit land, establishing a prima facie case with a probability of success. The 2nd respondent's actions in fencing off and interfering with the land, absent any evidence to the contrary, amounted to trespass. The applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown. Accordingly, the court granted the injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from entering or interfering with the land and ordered removal of any structures erected by the 2nd respondent.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The 2nd respondent is restrained from entering or interfering with L.R. Escarpment/Kinari/Block1/230 in any manner.
- The 2nd respondent shall remove any structures erected on the land within seven days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE 2214 OF 1999
JOSEPH WAWERU MWANGI…..……………………………PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOTHER.…………………DEFENDANT
RULING
In this application the applicant is asking for an Order to restrain the 2nd Respondent from entering or interfering in any manner with the land L.R. Escarpment/Kinari/Block1/230.
The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Joseph Waweru Mwangi . He depones that this land was allotted to him and he is in possession since allocation. He annexes the Title Deed, which shows that the land is his. The certificate of search whose copy is also annexed confirms that the land is his. The need for this application arose when the Chief of Kinari Location in Lari Division fenced off some of the land and informed the applicant that part of the land thus fenced belonged to somebody else.
The applicant has filed a suit in which he has asked for a permanent injunction against the 2nd Defendant. The evidence before the court shows the applicant as the owner of the land. The production of the Tittle Deed which describes the land and has the name of the applicant is very strong evidence of ownership. With this evidence, the suit filed by the applicant has a probability of success. As it is now the 2nd defendant would be trespassing by interfering with this land so long the tittle deed shows the applicant as the owner. The applicant would be entitled to an injunction as he has fulfilled all the conditions necessary for an injunction.
The application is therefore allowed. The 2nd Respondent is hereby restrained from entering or and interfering with the suit land in any manner.
The 2nd Respondent will also remove any structures he erected on the land within seven days.
The 2nd Respondent will pay the cost of this application.
Delivered and dated at Nairobi this 1st day of August, 2000.
KASANGA MULWA
JUDGE