[2016] KEELC 1093 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 1093 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioners failed to provide any documentary evidence, such as a letter of allotment or title, to establish their ownership or legal entitlement to LR No. 7473/4/1. The only documents produced were letters requesting payment of survey fees, which did not identify the land, and two allotment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 1093 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mt Longonot Farmers Self Help Group (suing through its officials Samuel Njuguna Mukundi - Chairman and others); Respondent: The Administration Police Commandant; Respondent: The Inspector General; Respondent: Hon Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 51 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Conservatory Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
MA Silau
Legal Topics
Land Allocation Disputes, Conservatory Orders, Right to Property, Proof of Title
Source Language
en
Land and Property Constitutional Law Land Allocation Disputes Conservatory Orders Right to Property Proof of Title

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mt Longonot Farmers Self Help Group (suing through its officials Samuel Njuguna Mukundi - Chairman and others)

Applicant

The Administration Police Commandant

Respondent

The Inspector General

Respondent

Hon Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Conservatory Orders

  1. 1 Whether the petitioners have demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of conservatory orders over LR No. 7473/4/1.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioners have established ownership or legal entitlement to the suit land.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' actions violated the petitioners' constitutional right to property under Article 40.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioners failed to provide any documentary evidence, such as a letter of allotment or title, to establish their ownership or legal entitlement to LR No. 7473/4/1. The only documents produced were letters requesting payment of survey fees, which did not identify the land, and two allotment letters unrelated to the suit property. As a result, the petitioners did not demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, a prerequisite for the grant of conservatory orders. The court was not in doubt and therefore did not consider the balance of convenience. The application for conservatory orders was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for conservatory orders is dismissed with costs to the respondents.