[2015] KEHC 6145 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case for injunctive relief by producing a valid title and official search confirming ownership of the suit land, while the 2nd Defendant failed to provide a search certificate or credible evidence to challenge the Plaintiff's title. The other...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 6145 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kayatta Farmers Co-op Society Ltd; Defendant: Dorcus Muindi; Defendant: 2nd Defendant (unnamed)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 60 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Land Ownership Dispute, Trespass, Title Verification
- 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
Kayatta Farmers Co-op Society Ltd
Plaintiff
Dorcus Muindi
Defendant
2nd Defendant (unnamed)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory injunctive relief against the Defendants pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success regarding ownership and possession of the suit land.
- 3 Whether the Defendants have any valid claim or defence to the Plaintiff's title and occupation of the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case for injunctive relief by producing a valid title and official search confirming ownership of the suit land, while the 2nd Defendant failed to provide a search certificate or credible evidence to challenge the Plaintiff's title. The other Defendants did not file any response to the application. The court concluded that the Plaintiff was entitled to the injunctive orders sought, as the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm favored the Plaintiff, and the application had merit.
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted
Orders
- Prayers Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 granted pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
ELC CASE 60 OF 2013
KAYATTA FARMERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ………..……. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DORCUS MUINDI & 48 OTHERS …………………………. DEFENDANTS
RULING
The Plaintiff filed a Plaint dated 4. 11. 2013 seeking injunctive and declaratory reliefs against the Defendants. The Plaintiff/ Applicant at the same time filed a motion seeking injunctive reliefs against the same Defendants/Respondents. After service of the application and the summons upon them, only the 2nd Defendant/Respondent filed replying affidavit to oppose the application.
The Applicant’s case is that the Plaintiff bought suit land on 22. 8.2001 from Matungulu Farmers Co-op Ltd. and is currently registered owner. Since then the Plaintiff has been undertaking agricultural activities in the same farm including growing coffee, pineapples and leasing out part of the land 4532/2, LR. No.1853 and 1850/1. The applicant avers that the land is surveyed, beaconed and clearly demarcated on the ground. However, the Defendants have been trespassing therein. Sometimes in 2010 the Defendants trespassed on the land and with the help of the police Plaintiff managed to chase the Defendants away.
However, the Defendants have resorted into trespassing to the suit land and have destroyed Plaintiff crops, structures, have dug trenches and terraces and interfered with Applicant’s use and operations in the suit land LR.4532/2, 1853 and 1850/1. It is on the above basis the Applicant is seeking the reliefs in the instant application.
The 2nd Respondent claims to own jointly with his late mother LR.No.4532 and annexes a copy of title issued on 26. 1.1976. He denies knowing Defendants No.1, 3 upto 49 and calls them strangers whom he has never met. According to him the other Defendants have been invading suit land and are the same people invading their land. The 2nd Respondent seeks the application to be dismissed.
After going through the affidavits by the Applicant and the Respondent No.2, it is apparent that the Respondent No.2 has not put any search certificate confirming that ownership of LR.No.4532/2 as Applicant dismissed copy of title as fake. The Applicant has a copy of title of the same and official search which confirms ownership.
The 2nd Respondent does not indicate whether he is in occupation of the suit land or whether the sought orders will affect him. He is concentrating on challenging the applicant’s title. The rest of the Defendant have failed to file any reply to oppose the suit or the application despite service. The court therefore finds the application has merit and grants the following orders:-
Prayers Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
That costs in the cause.
Dated and Delivered at Machakos, this 13th day of February, 2015.
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE