[2018] KEELC 2569 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success by providing evidence of registration as proprietors of the suit land, including a copy of the title. The respondents did not present a credible challenge to the applicants' title or establish any legal right to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2569 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Josephine Kiramatisho Teeka; Plaintiff: Mary Ndonaishi Teeka; Plaintiff: Veronicah Wangoi Teeka; Defendant: Robert Mayieka Nyankundi; Defendant: Samwel Ondieki Nyandisi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 586B of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted
- Judges
- MN Kullow
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Trespass, 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
Josephine Kiramatisho Teeka
Plaintiff
Mary Ndonaishi Teeka
Plaintiff
Veronicah Wangoi Teeka
Plaintiff
Robert Mayieka Nyankundi
Defendant
Samwel Ondieki Nyandisi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy in lieu of an injunction.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to protection from interference with their possession and occupation of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success by providing evidence of registration as proprietors of the suit land, including a copy of the title. The respondents did not present a credible challenge to the applicants' title or establish any legal right to occupy or interfere with the property. The court held that unless the respondents were restrained, the applicants would be unable to enjoy the benefits of their property, and damages would not be an adequate remedy. Consequently, the court granted the interlocutory injunction as sought, pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 14th December, 2017 is allowed.
- The defendants are restrained from trespassing, encroaching, or interfering with the applicants' occupation and possession of land parcel CIS MARA/NKOBEN/14 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAROK
ELC CAUSE NO. 586B OF 2017
JOSEPHINE KIRAMATISHO TEEKA........................................1ST PLAINTIFF
MARY NDONAISHI TEEKA........................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERONICAH WANGOI TEEKA.................................................3RD PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS
ROBERT MAYIEKA NYANKUNDI...........................................1ST DEFENDANT
SAMWEL ONDIEKI NYANDISI................................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The Application before me is the Notice of Motion dated 14th December, 2017 seeking interlia orders of injunction restraining the Defendants from trespassing, encroaching, or interfering with the Applicants’ occupation and possession of land parcel NO CIS MARA/NKOBEN/14 hereinafter called the suit property. The Applicant further sought that the OCS Melelo Police Station do enforce the orders sought.
The Application based on the grounds contained is the same to which the Applicant states that he is the legal and beneficial owner of the suit land and that the Respondents have encroached on the land without any authority and when the Plaintiff attempted to access the land has been faced with hostility and violence and unless the orders sought are granted he will suffer loss.
The Application was further supported by the Affidavit of the 1st Applicant where she deponed and expounded on the grounds stated hereinabove to the affidavit she has annexed a copy of certificate of title to land. She further stated that the parcel of land belonged to her late husband who secured a loan to the property as security and he passed on without completing the payment of the loan. She says she purchased the land from the Bank when it was auctioned and the Respondent have encroached and trespassed on the land and thus interfered with her exclusive quite enjoyment and occupation of the same.
The Application was opposed by the Respondents who filed a Replying Affidavit.
When the application came before me for hearing the parties’ agreed to dispose off the Application by way of written submissions and both parties filed the same.
I have read the Application and the submissions filed and at this stage what is there for me to determine is whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with probability of success and whether damages will be adequate enough.
From the pleadings the Applicants have demonstrated to me that the suit land is registered in their name and she have annexed a copy of the title to the land.
Being the registered owner the Applicant is apprehensive that unless the Respondents are restrained they will be unable to reap the benefits from the suit property. The title of the Applicants remain unchallenged and in view of the above I find that the Plaintiff/Applicant has established a prima facie case with probability of success and in the upshot of the foregoing I will allow the Notice of Motion dated 14th December, 2017and costs of the application be in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in open court at NAROK on this 20th day of APRIL, 2018
MOHAMMED NOOR KULLOW
JUDGE
20/4/2018
In the presence of:
CA: Chuma
Mr Kamwaro for the applicant
Respondent in person
MOHAMMED NOOR KULLOW
JUDGE
20/4/2018