[2011] KECA 163 (KLR)

[2011] KECA 163 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated an arguable appeal, as the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal were substantially on points of law and not frivolous. The Court further held that unless an injunction was granted, the appeal would be rendered nugatory because the respondents could subdivide...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KECA 163 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kiura Kigundu; Respondent: David Muriithi; Respondent: Njagi Kigundu; Respondent: Njeru Kigundu; Respondent: Muchira Kigundu; Respondent: Chairman Central Province Land Dispute Tribunal; Respondent: Senior Resident Magistrate Court of Kenya at Kerugoya
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 92 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed. Injunction granted pending appeal. Costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
Injunction Pending Appeal, Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal, Judicial Review Time Limits, Proprietorship Rights, Enforcement of Illegality
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunction Pending Appeal Jurisdiction of Land Disputes Tribunal Judicial Review Time Limits Proprietorship Rights Enforcement of Illegality

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiura Kigundu

Applicant

David Muriithi

Respondent

Njagi Kigundu

Respondent

Njeru Kigundu

Respondent

Muchira Kigundu

Respondent

Chairman Central Province Land Dispute Tribunal

Respondent

Senior Resident Magistrate Court of Kenya at Kerugoya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal warranting the grant of an injunction pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether failure to grant the injunction would render the intended appeal nugatory.
  3. 3 Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the dispute over land parcel Ngariama/Kabare/225.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated an arguable appeal, as the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal were substantially on points of law and not frivolous. The Court further held that unless an injunction was granted, the appeal would be rendered nugatory because the respondents could subdivide and dispose of the land before the appeal was determined. The Court was satisfied that the principles for granting an injunction under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules had been met, specifically that there was an arguable appeal and that the success of the appeal would be rendered nugatory without the injunction. Accordingly, the Court exercised its discretion in...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Injunction granted pending appeal. Costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is granted restraining the first, second, third and fourth respondents from selling, disposing, alienating, transferring or in any manner interfering with the applicant’s property known as Ngariama/Kabare/225 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
  • Costs of the application shall be in the appeal.