[2016] KEELC 1188 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated ownership of the suit property by producing a title deed in the name of Wamagata Self Help Group. The defendants failed to file any response or demonstrate any right to be on the land. Applying the principles in Giella vs Cassman Brown, the court held that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELC 1188 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Margaret Wairimu Ngugi & 3 Others (Officials of Wamagata Squatters Self Help Group); Defendant: Samuel Ndungu Munyiri & Another
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 232 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Application for injunction allowed.
- Judges
- MA Silau
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Ownership Disputes, Title Deeds, Possession and Occupation
- 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
Margaret Wairimu Ngugi & 3 Others (Officials of Wamagata Squatters Self Help Group)
Plaintiff
Samuel Ndungu Munyiri & Another
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs stand to suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated ownership of the suit property by producing a title deed in the name of Wamagata Self Help Group. The defendants failed to file any response or demonstrate any right to be on the land. Applying the principles in Giella vs Cassman Brown, the court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success. The court further found that the plaintiffs deserved to be in use and occupation of the property and that the defendants must stay out of it pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The balance of convenience also favoured the plaintiffs, and the application for injunction was allowed.
Court Disposition
Application for injunction allowed.
Orders
- Defendants are restrained from the suit property pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- If the defendants are in occupation, they are to vacate the suit premises forthwith.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
ELC NO. 232 OF 2015
MARGARET WAIRIMU NGUGI & 3 OTHERS..............PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
SAMUEL NDUNGU MUNYIRI & ANOTHER.............DEFENDANTS
RULING
(Application for injunction; application unopposed; plaintiffs being owners of suit property; defendants not having demonstrated any right to be on it; prima facie case established; application allowed)
1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the officials of Wamagata Squatters Self Help Group. They have therefore brought this suit on their own behalf and on behalf of the members of the Self Help Group. It is their case that Wamagata Self Help Group is the owner of the land parcel Nakuru Municipality Block 16/835 and they have demonstrated a title deed drawn in their favour. Despite being owners, it is their case that the defendants have entered into their land and are proposing to erect structures on it.
The suit was filed on 12th August 2015 and together with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for injunction dated 11th August 2015 which is the subject of this ruling, seeking orders to have the defendants restrained from the suit property pending hearing and determination of this suit.
2. Despite being served with summons and with the application, the defendants have not entered appearance and have not filed any response to oppose the application.
3. The application is for injunction and I stand guided by the principles laid down in the case of Giella vs Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358. In the said case, it was held that to succeed in an application for injunction, one needs to demonstrate a prima facie and also show that he stands to suffer irreparable loss. If in doubt, the court will assess the application on a balance of convenience.
4. I have seen the title deed displayed by the plaintiffs. It shows that Wamagata Self Help Group owns the suit property. The defendants have not filed anything to show that they are entitled to be on the suit land. I am therefore of the view that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success.
5. They deserve to be in use and occupation of the suit property and the defendants must stay out of it pending hearing and determination of this case. If the defendants are in occupation, I direct that they vacate the suit premises forthwith.
6. The plaintiff shall also have costs of this application.
7. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this 20th January, 2016.
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
AT NAKURU
In presence of:-
Mr F K Maina holding brief for M/s Ikua Mwangi & Company for plaintiffs/applicants
Defendant: absent
CA: Janet
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
AT NAKURU