[2001] KEHC 448 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit land and that the defendants, while related by family, have no legal registration or recognized interest in the property. The 1st defendant's occupation was based solely on past family arrangements and not on any legal entitlement. The court held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 448 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lazaro Ivia Suku; Defendant: Nzula Joseph Suku; Defendant: Other Defendants (3 sons of Joseph Suku)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 95 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- injunction granted
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Land Ownership, Family 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
Lazaro Ivia Suku
Plaintiff
Nzula Joseph Suku
Defendant
Other Defendants (3 sons of Joseph Suku)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants should be restrained from cultivating or interfering with the plaintiff's land parcel No. MITABONI/MUTITUNI/603 pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the defendants have any legal right to occupy or use the suit land registered in the plaintiff's name.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit land and that the defendants, while related by family, have no legal registration or recognized interest in the property. The 1st defendant's occupation was based solely on past family arrangements and not on any legal entitlement. The court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the land until the substantive suit is determined. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff as the registered proprietor, and there was no evidence of any overriding interest in favor of the defendants.
Court Disposition
injunction granted
Orders
- The defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's land parcel No. MITABONI/MUTITUNI/603 until the case is heard and determined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
10 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CIVIL CASE NO. 95 OF 2000
LAZARO IVIA SUKU :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF VERSUS NZULA JOSEPH SUKU & 4 OTHERS:::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANT
Coram: J. W. Mwera J. Applicant in person 10 Mungata Advocate for Respondent C.C. Muli
************************ R U L I N G
The plaintiff’s injunction application followed a suit he filed against the 5 defendants – a mother (1st defendant) and her four sons that they should be restrained from cultivating on his land parcel No. MITABONI/MUTITUNI/603 registered in his name. He stated and submitted in person that he got this land from his late father Suku who was also the father of Joseph Suku, the husband of the 1st defendant and 20 father of all the other defendants. That Joseph who is still alive initially moved away from plot No. 603, apparently where all the family lived before subdivision by the late Suku, to his land at Mutituni. Apparently he left it to go and settle at a place called Kambu. This the court heard from the 1st defendant speaking on behalf of all the defendants. She conceded that she was not registered over this land but that she was getting on it because it once belonged to her father-in-law Suku. That Joseph Suku
her husband abandoned her with her children (the other defendants) to go and live at Kambu with another wife. So she was stuck on the plaintiff’s land.
Having heard both sides the defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s land No. 603 until this case is heard and determined. It looks like she and her children could only wage a right to land belonging to Joseph Suku who is still alive and appears not keen to interfere with his brother Lazaro the plaintiff. Be that as it may. Injunction granted. 10
Orders accordingly.
Delivered on 18th July 2001.
J. W. MWERA JUDGE