[2018] KEELC 3801 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3801 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to attach any certificate of title or documentary evidence of ownership to establish a prima facie case. The applicants also did not demonstrate what irreparable injury they would suffer if the injunction was not granted, nor did they show that damages would be inadequate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3801 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kaltuma Hassan Ibrahim; Applicant: Makay Ibrahim Issack; Applicant: Saadiya M. Ibrahim; Applicant: Abdisalan Ahmed Lakicha (Suing as the officials of ARDA–ADHI Farmers Women Group); Respondent: Ali Robow; Respondent: Adan Diss Robow; Respondent: Abdi Diss Row; Respondent: Abdi Diss Robow alias Abdi Yare
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Garissa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 8 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Ownership Disputes, Prima Facie Evidence, Irreparable Injury, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
en
Land and Property Injunctive Relief Ownership Disputes Prima Facie Evidence Irreparable Injury Balance of Convenience

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaltuma Hassan Ibrahim

Applicant

Makay Ibrahim Issack

Applicant

Saadiya M. Ibrahim

Applicant

Abdisalan Ahmed Lakicha (Suing as the officials of ARDA–ADHI Farmers Women Group)

Applicant

Ali Robow

Respondent

Adan Diss Robow

Respondent

Abdi Diss Row

Respondent

Abdi Diss Robow alias Abdi Yare

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated that they will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant or refusal of the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to attach any certificate of title or documentary evidence of ownership to establish a prima facie case. The applicants also did not demonstrate what irreparable injury they would suffer if the injunction was not granted, nor did they show that damages would be inadequate as a remedy. The court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour the applicants, as they had not met the threshold for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for temporary injunction is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • No order as to costs.