[2021] KEELC 3970 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3970 (KLR)

The court found that the orders issued on 23rd November, 2017 were ambiguous, as they appeared to grant both temporary and permanent injunctions at the interlocutory stage, which is procedurally improper. The court clarified that only a temporary injunction was intended, restraining the Defendant from dealing with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 3970 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Kariuki Njuguna; Plaintiff: Julius Ndung’u Mbugua; Defendant: Mwanzo Development Company Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 98A of 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Application for review allowed; previous orders reviewed and clarified.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Injunctions, Land Title Transfer, Error on Face of Record
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Court Orders Injunctions Land Title Transfer Error on Face of Record

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Kariuki Njuguna

Applicant

Julius Ndung’u Mbugua

Plaintiff

Mwanzo Development Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Interlocutory Orders

  1. 1 Whether the court orders issued on 23rd November, 2017 contained an apparent error on the face of the record.
  2. 2 Whether the orders should be reviewed to clarify the nature of the injunction granted and facilitate issuance of title documents to the 1st Plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether both temporary and permanent injunctions can be granted simultaneously at the interlocutory stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the orders issued on 23rd November, 2017 were ambiguous, as they appeared to grant both temporary and permanent injunctions at the interlocutory stage, which is procedurally improper. The court clarified that only a temporary injunction was intended, restraining the Defendant from dealing with the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The court held that the inclusion of permanent orders and directions to the Registrar at this stage was an error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the court reviewed and clarified its orders to reflect only the grant of a temporary injunction and directed that costs of the application be paid by...

Court Disposition

Application for review allowed; previous orders reviewed and clarified.

Orders

  • The Defendant is restrained by way of injunction from disposing, selling, offering for sale, sub-dividing, charging, transferring or in any way interfering with Title No. Mavoko Town Block 2/2623 (Plot No. 381 JKIA PHASE 5) pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  • Costs of the Application dated 6th March, 2017 to be paid by the Defendant.