[2016] KEHC 3316 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 3316 (KLR)

The court found that the application was unopposed as the respondent, though properly served, failed to appear or file any response. The applicants established that the land in question was family land intended for them, and that there was a risk of alienation or interference by the defendant. To preserve the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 3316 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lawrence Kiruki Mugambi; Applicant: Norah Wayua Maingi (Suing as the Legal representative of the estate of Mbaya Mugambi - Deceased); Respondent: Susan Gacheri Muthamia (being sued as the legal representative of the estate of Gerrison Mugambi alias Muthamia M'Mugambi - Deceased)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 90 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Application allowed as unopposed; interlocutory injunction and inhibition orders granted.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Family Land Disputes, Interlocutory Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Injunctions Family Land Disputes Interlocutory Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence Kiruki Mugambi

Applicant

Norah Wayua Maingi (Suing as the Legal representative of the estate of Mbaya Mugambi - Deceased)

Applicant

Susan Gacheri Muthamia (being sued as the legal representative of the estate of Gerrison Mugambi alias Muthamia M'Mugambi - Deceased)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the suit land pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether orders of inhibition should be issued to prevent dealings with the suit land until the suit is heard and determined.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was unopposed as the respondent, though properly served, failed to appear or file any response. The applicants established that the land in question was family land intended for them, and that there was a risk of alienation or interference by the defendant. To preserve the subject matter of the suit and prevent irreparable harm, the court confirmed the orders of interlocutory injunction and inhibition as sought in prayers 3 and 4 of the application. The court exercised its discretion to grant the orders in the absence of opposition, ensuring that the status quo is maintained until the suit is heard and determined.

Court Disposition

Application allowed as unopposed; interlocutory injunction and inhibition orders granted.

Orders

  • An order of injunction restraining the defendant, her family, servants, or agents from alienating, selling, transferring, or in any way interfering with Land Reference Nos. ABOTHUGUCHI/KITHURINE/1674 and ABOTHUGUCHI/KITHURINE/1675 pending the hearing and determination of the suit is confirmed.
  • Orders of inhibition are issued to inhibit any dealings with Land Reference Nos. ABOTHUGUCHI/KITHURINE/1674 and ABOTHUGUCHI/KITHURINE/1675 until the suit is heard and determined.