[2024] KEELC 4439 (KLR)
The court found that there was already an order of status quo in place regarding the suit properties. Given the ongoing dispute over ownership and the risk of further transactions or developments prejudicing either party, the court held that it was in the interest of justice to maintain the status quo both on the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 4439 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kangor Yatich Kipkorir; Plaintiff: Lenging Kipyator; Plaintiff: GS Self Help Group; Defendant: Walter Tanui; Defendant: Wesley Kiptanui; Defendant: Tom Kiptanui; Defendant: Kenneth Kiptanui; Defendant: Kevin Kiptanui; Defendant: Edward Cherutich Kiptanui; Defendant: Paulina Kabon Kiptanui; Defendant: Magdaline Targok Kiptanui; Defendant: Jane Soti Kiptanui
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E047 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Status Quo Orders
- Outcome
- Status quo order granted; interlocutory injunction not expressly issued; matter set for hearing.
- Judges
- A Ombwayo
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Status Quo Orders, Land Ownership Disputes, Sale of Land, Beneficial Ownership
- 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
Kangor Yatich Kipkorir
Plaintiff
Lenging Kipyator
Plaintiff
GS Self Help Group
Plaintiff
Walter Tanui
Defendant
Wesley Kiptanui
Defendant
Tom Kiptanui
Defendant
Kenneth Kiptanui
Defendant
Kevin Kiptanui
Defendant
Edward Cherutich Kiptanui
Defendant
Paulina Kabon Kiptanui
Defendant
Magdaline Targok Kiptanui
Defendant
Jane Soti Kiptanui
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Status Quo Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the suit properties pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the status quo should be maintained in respect of the suit properties until the hearing and determination of the suit.
- 3 Whether the defendants have demonstrated sufficient grounds for the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was already an order of status quo in place regarding the suit properties. Given the ongoing dispute over ownership and the risk of further transactions or developments prejudicing either party, the court held that it was in the interest of justice to maintain the status quo both on the ground and in the land registry. The court emphasized the need for parties to expedite the hearing of the main suit rather than focus on interlocutory applications. Accordingly, the court ordered that the status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit, and directed the Deputy Registrar to visit the suit property and file a status report within 15 days.
Court Disposition
Status quo order granted; interlocutory injunction not expressly issued; matter set for hearing.
Orders
- Status quo on the ground and in the register of the suit properties at the land registry to be maintained pending hearing of the suit.
- Deputy Registrar to visit the suit property within 15 days from the date of ruling and file a status report.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
Kipkorir & another (Suing for and on Behalf of GS Self Help Group) v Tanui & 8 others (Environment & Land Case E047 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 4439 (KLR) (30 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 4439 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Environment & Land Case E047 of 2022
A Ombwayo, J
May 30, 2024
Between
Kangor Yatich Kipkorir
1st Plaintiff
Lenging Kipyator
2nd Plaintiff
Suing for and on Behalf of GS Self Help Group
and
Walter Tanui
1st Defendant
Wesley Kiptanui
2nd Defendant
Tom Kiptanui
3rd Defendant
Kenneth Kiptanui
4th Defendant
Kevin Kiptanui
5th Defendant
Edward Cherutich Kiptanui
6th Defendant
Paulina Kabon Kiptanui
7th Defendant
Magdaline Targok Kiptanui
8th Defendant
Jane Soti Kiptanui
9th Defendant
Ruling
1. The defendants in this matter seek orders that pending the hearing and determination of this suit a temporary Injunction be issued restraining the Plaintiff and its members by themselves, their agents, servants, employees, or anyone authorized by them and acting on their behalf from trespassing on transferring, intermeddling, advertising for the sale, disposing of, letting, leasing, further building or otherwise in any other manner interfering with or dealing with all that parcel of land known as parcels no 1 18, 120, 121, and 122 9 and or any of their sub-divisions) in the proposed sub-division of LR No 482/5 and 482/6 measuring approximately 20 acres of Koyumtich Self-Help Group.
2. In the alternative, that this court be pleased to order that status quo be maintained in the parcel of land known as parcels no 118, 120, 121, and 122 (and or any of their sub-divisions) in the proposed sub-division of LR No 482/5 and 482/6 measuring approximately 20 acres of Koyumtich Self-Help Group in that no further sale and or disposition be undertaken with respect to the suit land and or its subdivisions.
3. The Honorable Court to be pleased to issue an order to the County Police Commander Nakuru to assist in the enforcement of the said orders. The Applicant be at liberty to apply for such further or other orders and/or directions as this Honorable Court may deem fit and just to grant. The costs of this application be provided for.
4. The application is based on grounds that the 6th Defendant is the beneficial owner of all those parcels of land known as parcels no 118, 120, 121, and 122 in the proposed sub-division of LR No 482/5 and 482/6 measuring approximately 20 acres of Koyumtich Self Help Group.
5. That the 6th Defendant entered into a sale agreement for the said parcels of land with Winnie Jebichi Boronjo and Caroline Chemtai for a purchase price of Kshs2, 250,000/= an acre making the entire purchase price Kshs45,000, 000/=.
6. That the said purchasers did not pay the agreed purchase price thus frustrating the transaction and the said parcel of land was subsequently sold to the Plaintiffs herein who are allegedly selling and or advertising the same for sale.
7. That despite there being a pending suit on ownership of the suit properties, the Plaintiff through its members herein has commenced developments on the suit properties. That the actions of the Plaintiffs herein are to prejudice the Defendants interests in the suit properties and further prejudice this suit.
8. The Plaintiff herein moved this court but instead of awaiting the outcome has proceeded to take the law into its hands to violate the rights of the defendants. The actions by the Plaintiff and its members are motivated by malice and made in bad faith and there is a need for this honorable Court to intervene. Unless the Plaintiff and its members are stopped, they will continue to interfere with the suit properties in a way that if the recover the said properties.
9. In light of the foregoing, it would serve the in interest of justice to allow the Defendants/Applicants to amend the defence. The application is made in good faith and it is in the interest of justice that the same be allowed as prayed. The supporting affidavit reiterates the grounds.
10. I have perused the affidavit on record and rival submissions and do find that there is already an order of status quo on record. Parties must fast track this matter for hearing rather than mark time on applications. I do order that the status quo on the ground and in the register of the suit properties at the land registry be maintained pending the hearing of the suit. The Deputy Registrar to visit the suit property within 15 days from today and file a status report. Hearing on 20th and 21st November 2024.
Ruling dated signed and delivered virtually at Nakuru this 30th day of May 2024. A O OMBWAYOJUDGEELC NO E047 OF 2022 0