[2012] KEHC 2224 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the suit land and that the respondents do not claim any portion of it, but there exists a serious boundary dispute involving adjoining parcels. Given that the applicant resides on the land, has made substantial developments, and uses it for grazing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2224 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lerionka Ole Soit; Defendant: Nchomo Ole Kakui; Defendant: Leparan Nawangas; Defendant: Patrick Osinu Nawangas; Defendant: Joseph Marie Nawangas; Defendant: Ole Moi Nawangas
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 279 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interim Injunction
- Outcome
- Application for interim injunction granted.
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunctions, Boundary Disputes, Land Ownership, Proprietary Rights
- 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
Lerionka Ole Soit
Plaintiff
Nchomo Ole Kakui
Defendant
Leparan Nawangas
Defendant
Patrick Osinu Nawangas
Defendant
Joseph Marie Nawangas
Defendant
Ole Moi Nawangas
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interim Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit land pending determination of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the balance of convenience favors the grant of an injunction in light of the ongoing boundary disputes.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the suit land and that the respondents do not claim any portion of it, but there exists a serious boundary dispute involving adjoining parcels. Given that the applicant resides on the land, has made substantial developments, and uses it for grazing and cultivation, the court determined that the balance of convenience favors maintaining the status quo. Applying the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown, the court concluded that an interim injunction is warranted to preserve peace and prevent further interference until the substantive issues are resolved in the main suit. The injunction will remain in force until further...
Court Disposition
Application for interim injunction granted.
Orders
- An order of injunction is issued restraining the respondents from interfering with Land parcel No. Transmara/Olalui/296 until further orders of the court.
- Costs are awarded to the applicant but shall await the outcome of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
LERIONKA OLE SOIT..............................................................................PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
1. NCHOMO OLE KAKUI
2. LEPARAN NAWANGAS
3. PATRICK OSINU NAWANGAS
4. JOSEPH MARIE NAWANGAS
5. OLE MOI NAWANGAS ............................................................... DEFENDANTS
RULING
By this application expressed to be brought under Orders 40, Rules 1, 2, 3and51, Civil Procedure Rules 2010; and Section 1A, 3A and 63 (e)of the Civil; Procedure Act , the applicant, who is the plaintiff in the suit, prays for an interim injunction to restrain the respondents, the defendants in the suit, from entering interfering with the fencing, constructions or whatsoever interfering with the suit land known as Land parcel No. Transmara/Olalui/296.
It is manifestly plain from the certificate of official search that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the suit land. Further it is significant that the respondents do not at all claim any portion of the said suit land.
However, what is apparent from the averments in the replying affidavit and the annexed certificates of official search is that the respondents are the registered proprietors of the adjoining parcels of land known as Transmara Olalui/292, 293 and 294 and that there exists a serious boundary dispute as far as the suit land and all other parcels of land above mentioned are concerned.
From the pleadings on record, it is apparent that as a result of the boundary disputes, several suits have been filed by the parties in the High Courts of Kenya at Kisii and Nakuru and none of them so far has been determined.
It is in the interest of justice that peace be maintained until it is finally determined whether the respondents have encroached on to the applicant’s parcel of land or not. Again, having carefully considered the principles set out inGiella v Cassman Brown and Co. Ltd [1973] EA 348, I am satisfied that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant in that he lives on the suit land together with his family and had erected houses on it. Further, he also grazes his cattle on it and has planted food crops like maize and beans on it.
In the result, I grant the application as prayed and I do issue an order for injunction as sought. It shall continue to operate until further orders of this court. Costs herein are awarded to the applicant but shall await the outcome of the suit.
Ruling dated, signedand delivered at Kisii this 23rd day of August, 2012.
R. LAGAT-KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Edwin Mongare court clerk
…..…………..………..... Counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants
…………………..……..… Counsel for the defendants/respondents
R. LAGAT-KORIR
JUDGE