[2023] KEELC 17939 (KLR)
The court found that the application was without merit because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the subdivision by the respondent affected plots No 1 and 12, or that these plots still existed as identifiable entities. The court noted that a permanent injunction had already been granted in the 2006 judgment,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 17939 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Anne Mwikali Makobo (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late James Makobo); Respondent: Mutungulu Farmers Company Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 370 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Injunction, Contempt, and Transfer of Title
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AA Omollo
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Transfer of Title, Estate Administration
- 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
Anne Mwikali Makobo (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late James Makobo)
Applicant
Mutungulu Farmers Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Injunction, Contempt, and Transfer of Title
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a mandatory injunction should issue restraining the respondent from dealing with plots No 1 and 12 pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the respondent should be sanctioned for contempt of court orders.
- 3 Whether the respondent should be compelled to transfer the titles of plot No 1 and 12 to the applicant as administrator of the estate of James Makobo.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was without merit because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the subdivision by the respondent affected plots No 1 and 12, or that these plots still existed as identifiable entities. The court noted that a permanent injunction had already been granted in the 2006 judgment, rendering the request for a further injunction redundant. The contempt application was not proved as the applicant did not name the directors responsible for non-compliance. The request to compel transfer of title could not be granted in the absence of evidence that the plots still existed. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated September 17, 2019 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Makobo (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late James Makobo) v Mutungulu Farmers Company Limited (Environment & Land Case 370 of 2019) [2023] KEELC 17939 (KLR) (9 June 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 17939 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 370 of 2019
AA Omollo, J
June 9, 2023
Between
Anne Mwikali Makobo (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late James Makobo)
Applicant
and
Mutungulu Farmers Company Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. This application dated September 17, 2019 is brought under the provisions of article 40 of the Constitution, section 50 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiff/applicant sought for the following;1. Spent2. That a mandatory injunction do issue restraining the respondent by herself, agents and/or employees or whomsoever is acting on her behalf from demolishing, transferring, selling, conveying, charging, leasing, or in any way dealing with plots No 1 and 12 pending the hearing and the determination of this suit.3. That the defendants be sanctioned for contempt and blatant disregard of this honourable court’s orders.4. That Matungulu Farmers be compelled to transfer the titles of property known as plot No 1 and plot No 12 to the Applicant as administrator of the estate of James Makobo.5. That the cost be in the cause.
2. The application is premised on the grounds inter alia;a.That despite the decree by court, the respondent proceeded to subdivide and issue titles without considering the estate of the deceased.b.The applicant herein has thus suffered immeasurable loss owing to the respondents acts of utter and complete disregard of the directions of this honourable court.c.The applicant thus seeks for an order compelling Matungulu Farmers to transfer the titles of property known as plot No 1 and plot No 12 to the applicant as administrator of the estate of James Makobo.d.The applicant seeks for an injunction restraining the respondent by herself, agents and/or employees or whomsoever is acting on her behalf from demolishing, transferring, selling, conveying, charging, leasing, or in any way dealing with plot No 1 and 12 pending the hearing and the determination of this suit.
3. The applicant also swore an affidavit in support of the application which raised the facts as pleaded in the grounds on the face of the application. There is no replying affidavit filed in opposition to the application.
4. The application has been brought post the judgment delivered on February 10, 2006 by Wendoh J where she found that plot 1 and 12 Matungulu Farmers Ltd. belonged to plaintiff (James Makobo Muthua) and the defendant company (Matungulu Farmers) was permanently restrained from trespassing upon it, selling or interfering with the said land in any manner.
5. From a reading of the judgement rendered and which was annexed by the applicant, the court already granted prayer 2 of the motion by issuing an order of permanent injunction against the defendant company. The prayer number 3 for contempt has not been ably addressed or proved as the applicant did not name the directors who declined to effect the transfer.
6. In respect to prayer 4 seeking to have the defendant compelled to effect the transfer, at paragraph 7 of the supporting, the applicant deposed that the defendant proceeded to subdivide and sell the plots. The affidavit does not bring out what has been subdivided and sold ie whether it is the entire land or its plots 1 and 12.
7. The judgment was rendered in 2006 which is approximately over 13 years as at the time of filing the application. The applicant having failed to demonstrate that the subdivision alluded to did not affect plot 1 and 12, it would be in vain to give an order compelling a transfer for a plot number which may nolonger be in existence. I find prayer 4 is also not proved.
8. In conclusion, I find that the application is without merit and it is dismissed. Since the application is not defended, no costs is awarded.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023A. OMOLLOJUDGEIn the Presence ofN/A for both parties