[2016] KEHC 2931 (KLR)
The court found that the application was urgent due to the imminent threat of eviction of the applicant and his family from the suit property, as announced by the respondent. The applicant only became aware of the dismissal for want of prosecution after this announcement. The court accepted that any error by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2931 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lawrence Gitonga Njeru; Respondent: Diocese of Meru Trustees
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 92 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ex Parte Interim Application for Reinstatement and Injunctive Relief
- Outcome
- Interim inhibition and injunction orders granted ex parte; suit reinstatement and other prayers to be heard inter partes.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Suit, Interim Injunctions, Inhibition Orders, Want of Prosecution, Land Disputes
- 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
Lawrence Gitonga Njeru
Applicant
Diocese of Meru Trustees
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ex Parte Interim Application for Reinstatement and Injunctive Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether interim inhibition and injunction orders should be granted to preserve the suit property pending hearing.
- 3 Whether urgency and risk of eviction justify ex parte relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was urgent due to the imminent threat of eviction of the applicant and his family from the suit property, as announced by the respondent. The applicant only became aware of the dismissal for want of prosecution after this announcement. The court accepted that any error by the applicant's previous advocate in failing to prosecute the suit should not be visited upon the applicant. To preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm, the court granted interim inhibition and injunction orders restraining the respondent from dealing with or interfering with the suit property until the inter partes hearing. The court exercised its discretion under...
Court Disposition
Interim inhibition and injunction orders granted ex parte; suit reinstatement and other prayers to be heard inter partes.
Orders
- Prayers 4 and 6 of the application are granted: interim inhibition order issued against dealings with land title MUTHAMBI/GATUA/740 until hearing and determination of the application.
- Interim injunction restraining the respondent and its agents from wasting, damaging, alienating, selling, removing, disposing of, or obstructing the applicant's enjoyment of the suit property until determination of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL NO 92 OF 2010 (OS)
LAWRENCE GITONGA NJERU............................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIOCESE OF MERU TRUSTEES........................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. This application states that it has been brought to Court pursuant to Article 159(d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, Section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya, Order 17 Rule (2) (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Orders 40 Rules 1 (a) and (b) of the Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012 and any other enabling provision of the law. The application is dated 31st August, 2016 and seeks orders:-
(1) Service of this application may be dispensed with in the first instance.
(2) This Honourable Court be pleased to set aside the order issued on 9th July, 2015 in which the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution.
(3) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to reinstitute and restore this suit to be heard on merit.
(4) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an Inhibition order inhibiting any dealings with the title to land registration number MUTHAMBI/GATUA/740 until the hearing and determination of this application.
(5) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an inhibition order inhibiting any dealings with the title to land registration number MUTHAMBI/GATUA/740 until the hearing and determination of this suit.
(6) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Temporary Injunction restraining the Defendant by itself, its adherents, agents, employees and/or servant from wasting, damaging, alienation, sale,removal, disposition of the suit property and/or in any way obstructing the applicant from his quiet enjoyment of the suit premises until the determination of this application.
(7) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a temporary Injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its adherents, agents, employees and/or servant from wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal disposition of the suit property and/or in any way obstructing the applicant from his quiet enjoyment of the suit premises until the hearing and determination of this suit.
2. The application is supported by the Affidavit of LAWRENCE GITONGA NJERU, the applicant and has one ground which reads as follows:-
(a) The Respondent has threatened to forcefully enter the suit and evict premises (sic) and eject out the Applicant and his family on 3rd September, 2016 without any Court Order to that effect.
3. Mr. Riungu for the Applicant invited the Court to peruse the applicant's pleadings and find that the application is urgent and the Interim Orders sought are meritorious. He told the Court that the Catholic Church had on 28/08/2016 announced that its members would evict the applicant from his home on 03/09/2016 just 2 days before this application was heard exparte. He told the Court that it is only after this announcement was made that the applicant learnt that his suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution.
4. He told the Court that Mr. I.C Mugo had all along assured the applicant that he was seeking a hearing date for the suit. Mr. Riungu opined that an error committed by an Advocate should not be visited upon his client.
5. I have perused the pleadings. I find that the application has urgency and its prayers 4 and 6 should be granted at this exparte stage.
6. Prayers 4 and 6 are granted in terms of Section 63, CPA.
7. Costs shall be in the cause.
8. Interpartes hearing on 13/09/2016.
9. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
CC: Lilian/Daniel
Riungu for the Applicant
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE