[2010] KEHC 3184 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. The objector had not opposed the application, and the evidence showed ongoing interference with the applicant’s possession of the property, including destruction of miraa plants and threats of eviction. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3184 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Julia Mainda Mutiga; Respondent: Stanley Kiuru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 141 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Interlocutory Application (chamber Summons) for Injunctive Relief Pending Hearing of Objection
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Injunction granted restraining the objector from interfering with the applicant’s possession of the property pending hearing and determination of the matter.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Succession Disputes, Injunctive Relief, Intermeddling With Estate, Rights of Widow, Possession of Land
- 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
Julia Mainda Mutiga
Applicant
Stanley Kiuru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Interlocutory Application (chamber Summons) for Injunctive Relief Pending Hearing of Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the objector should be restrained from evicting the petitioner from the suit property pending determination of the succession cause.
- 2 Whether the objector should be restrained from plucking or damaging the petitioner’s miraa plants or interfering with her possession of the property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. The objector had not opposed the application, and the evidence showed ongoing interference with the applicant’s possession of the property, including destruction of miraa plants and threats of eviction. The court held that it was just and equitable to restrain the objector from interfering with the applicant’s possession of half of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. The court also considered the applicant’s age and vulnerability, emphasizing the need to protect her rights as a widow in occupation of the estate property.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Injunction granted restraining the objector from interfering with the applicant’s possession of the property pending hearing and determination of the matter.
Orders
- An order is issued restraining Stanley Kiuru, whether by himself, his assigns, servants, agents, or employees, from evicting Julia Mainda M’Mutiga and/or from plucking or damaging her miraa (khat) or in any way interfering with her exclusive peaceful quiet and uninterrupted possession of half of LR. No....
- The objector shall pay the petitioner’s costs of the Chamber Summons dated 28th October 2009.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
Succession Cause 141 of 2005
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MUTIGA M’THIRINGI (DECEASED)
JULIA MAINDA MUTIGA ………. PETITIONER/APPLICANT
VERSUS
STANLEY KIURU ………………….. OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT
RULING
The petitioner Julia Mainda petitioned for grant of letters of administration intestate in respect of her husband’s estate in this matter. After the cause was gazetted, Stanley Kiuru filed an objection and cross petition for a grant. That objection was filed on 29th July 2005. Todate, the objection has not been heard. What is for consideration by the court is a Chamber Summons dated 28th October 2009. By that chamber Summons the petitioner seeks to restrain the objector from evicting her or from plucking and damaging her miraa plants. In her affidavit in support the petitioner stated that the objector is her step son born by her deceased father and another woman. He was brought to her and she reared him. Before the deceased husband passed away, he had divided his only property parcel no. L.R. Njia/Buri-E-Ruri/1632. However, after the death of her husband, the objector begun to forcibly pluck her miraa shoots and at other times destroying the young shoots in order to destroy the plants. She also deponed that he has been cutting her napier grass for his cows. Further, that he instructed his son to build a house right next to the petitioner with a view to evicting her. The petitioner is an elderly lady. At the hearing of her application her counsel did ask her to stand up and I had an opportunity to see her. She, I would estimate would be in her late 70 and early 80 years. she said that at time she has been threatened with slashes by the objector and his son and all of this with a view to getting her to vacate the suit property. The petitioner has reported the matter to the chief and the police who have variously warned the objector. The objector has not relented and she was advised to bring the matter to court. The matter was not opposed since the objector had not filed an affidavit in opposition to the petitioner’s plaint. I find that the application is merited and is deserving of the prayers that are sought. I grant the following orders:-
1. An order is hereby issued restraining Stanley Kiuru the objector herein whether by himself, through his assigns, servants, agents and or employees or whomever acting or claiming for him from evicting the petitioner Julia Mainda M’Mutiga and/or from plucking or damaging Julia Mainda M’Mutiga’s miraa (khat) or in any way interfering with the petitioner’s applicant’s exclusive peaceful quiet and uninterrupted possession of half of LR. No. Njia/Buri-E-Ruri/1632 pending the hearing and determination of this matter.
2. The objector shall pay the petitioner’s costs of the Chamber Summons dated 28th October 2009.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 12th day of March 2010.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE