[2015] KEHC 4358 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Although the respondent is the registered owner of the suit land, the applicant produced a sale agreement for KITETA/NGILUNI/2154, while the respondent failed to provide documentary evidence supporting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 4358 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joshua Munywoki; Defendant: Patrick Mukonza Nzioki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 38 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for interlocutory injunction allowed with costs to the applicant.
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Land Sale Disputes, Land Control Board Consent, First Registration, 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
Joshua Munywoki
Plaintiff
Patrick Mukonza Nzioki
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with land parcel KITETA/NGILUNI/2154 pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
- 3 Whether the absence of Land Control Board consent affects the applicant's claim to occupation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Although the respondent is the registered owner of the suit land, the applicant produced a sale agreement for KITETA/NGILUNI/2154, while the respondent failed to provide documentary evidence supporting his claim that only KITETA/NGILUNI/1211 was sold. The court noted that the applicant's claim to occupation dates back to 1986, and the acts of destruction by the respondent began only in 2010. The issue of lack of Land Control Board consent was raised, but the court considered the long-standing occupation by the applicant as a relevant factor. On balance, the court held that...
Court Disposition
Application for interlocutory injunction allowed with costs to the applicant.
Orders
- An order of injunction is issued restraining the defendant, his servants, agents and/or employees from carrying on construction work, alienating or in any manner whatsoever interfering with land parcel number KITETA/NGILUNI/2154 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CIVIL CASE NO. 38 OF 2010
JOSHUA MUNYWOKI..................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PATRICK MUKONZA NZIOKI......................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The application dated 22nd February, 2010 seeks orders that an order of injunction do issue restraining the Defendant by himself, his servants, agents and/or employees from carrying on construction work, alienating or in any manner whatsoever from interfering with land parcel number KITETA/NGILUNI/2154, pending the inter-parte hearing of this application and/or final determination of this suit.
2. It is stated in the affidavit in support that the Applicant’s purchased the suit property from the Respondent in the year 1986. The Applicant’s complaint is that in the month of January, 2010 the Respondent entered the aforestated land and started committing acts of wanton destruction and precluded the Applicant from entering the said land.
3. The application is opposed. It is the Respondent’s contention that he is the registered owner and the one in possession of the suit property. The Respondent denied having sold the suit property to the Applicant. According to the Respondent, the only parcel of land he sold to the Applicant was a portion of KITETA/NGILUNI/1211. The Respondent has not denied having refused the Applicant entry to the land in question. The Respondent further stated that his title to the land in question is a first registration and that the Applicant has no right to the same. That the land in question is agricultural land and no consent to transfer the same was obtained from the Land Control Board.
4. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions which I have duly considered.
5. It is common ground that the Respondent is the registered owner of the suit land. Although the Respondent has stated that the land he sold to the Applicant is land parcel number KITETA/NGILUNI/1211, no sale agreement or any other document was exhibited to support the said claim. On the other hand, the Applicant has annexed the sale agreement for land parcel no. KITETA/NGILUNI/2154.
6. Although the question of failure to obtain the consent of the Land Control Board was raised, it is noted that the Applicant’s claim to the occupation of the land dates back to 1986 while the alleged acts of destruction are said to have started in the year 2010.
7. Prima facie, the Applicant’s case meets the threshold for grant of the orders sought. Consequently, I allow the application with costs to the Applicant.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 7th day of May, 2015
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE