[2021] KEELC 2794 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 2794 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs/applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case by showing they purchased and took possession of the suit property, registered the transfer, and maintained exclusive possession. The 1st defendant did not establish that it was in possession of the property. Given the conflicting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 2794 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kenya Wildlife Service Staff Superannuation Scheme Registered Trustees; Plaintiff: Kenya Wildlife Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme 2006 Registered Trustees; Defendant: Dykcoe Enterprises Limited; Defendant: Nephets Interlink Service Limited; Defendant: The Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: The Honourable Attorney General; Defendant: County Government of Nairobi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E010 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Ownership Disputes, Land Title, Possession, Trespass, Preservation of Property
Source Language
en
Land and Property Temporary Injunctions Ownership Disputes Land Title Possession Trespass Preservation of Property

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Wildlife Service Staff Superannuation Scheme Registered Trustees

Plaintiff

Kenya Wildlife Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme 2006 Registered Trustees

Plaintiff

Dykcoe Enterprises Limited

Defendant

Nephets Interlink Service Limited

Defendant

The Chief Land Registrar

Defendant

The Honourable Attorney General

Defendant

County Government of Nairobi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs/applicants have met the threshold for grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs/applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case by showing they purchased and took possession of the suit property, registered the transfer, and maintained exclusive possession. The 1st defendant did not establish that it was in possession of the property. Given the conflicting claims of ownership and the need to preserve the property pending the hearing and determination of the main suit, the court held that the interests of justice required the issuance of a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo. The question of how LR No 1/287 became LR No 1/1406 would be resolved at trial. Costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their agents, servants, or any other person acting for them from trespassing into LR No 1/287 Lenana Road, Kilimani, Nairobi or interfering with the plaintiffs' exclusive possession, occupation, and user thereof until the suit is heard and...
  • The plaintiffs/applicants shall not develop, undertake construction, dispose of, or lease out LR No 1/287, Lenana Road, Nairobi, pending the hearing and determination of the suit.