[2017] KEELC 1195 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1195 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated, on a prima facie basis, that it is the registered owner of the suit property as evidenced by the certificate of title. The respondent failed to contest the applicant's averments, having neither filed grounds of opposition nor a replying affidavit. The court noted...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1195 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kamuthi Housing Co-operative Society Limited; Respondent: Hon. Amos Mbuthia Mukami
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 187 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application allowed in terms of prayers 4, 6, and 7 of the motion dated 20th March 2017.
Legal Topics
Ownership Disputes, Land Invasion, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
en
Land and Property Ownership Disputes Land Invasion Injunctive Relief

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamuthi Housing Co-operative Society Limited

Applicant

Hon. Amos Mbuthia Mukami

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is the registered owner of LR No. 71/7/10 (I.R No.178537).
  2. 2 Whether the respondent unlawfully instigated the invasion and subdivision of the applicant's property.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to the injunctive reliefs sought in the motion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated, on a prima facie basis, that it is the registered owner of the suit property as evidenced by the certificate of title. The respondent failed to contest the applicant's averments, having neither filed grounds of opposition nor a replying affidavit. The court noted that the applicant's evidence remained unchallenged and that the respondent's alleged actions amounted to unlawful interference with the applicant's proprietary rights. Consequently, the court allowed the application in terms of the specified prayers in the motion, granting the injunctive relief sought by the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in terms of prayers 4, 6, and 7 of the motion dated 20th March 2017.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is allowed in terms of prayer Four (4), Six (6), and Seven (7) of the Motion dated 20th March 2017.