[2016] KEHC 6765 (KLR)
The court did not make a substantive determination on the merits of the application for a temporary injunction, as the parties agreed to withdraw and settle the application. The court therefore marked the application as withdrawn and settled, with costs in the cause. The court further directed both parties to comply...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 6765 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Martin Gitonga Muthee; Defendant: Isaiah Murungi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 204 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application Withdrawn
- Outcome
- application withdrawn and settled by consent
- Legal Topics
- Adjudication Disputes, Temporary Injunctions, Land Occupation, Ministerial Appeals
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Martin Gitonga Muthee
Plaintiff
Isaiah Murungi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application Withdrawn
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success to warrant the grant of injunctive orders.
- 3 Whether the withdrawal and settlement of the application affects the substantive rights of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court did not make a substantive determination on the merits of the application for a temporary injunction, as the parties agreed to withdraw and settle the application. The court therefore marked the application as withdrawn and settled, with costs in the cause. The court further directed both parties to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within specified timelines to facilitate the progression of the main suit. The withdrawal of the application leaves the substantive issues for determination at trial, and the parties are to seek directions for further conduct of the matter.
Court Disposition
application withdrawn and settled by consent
Orders
- The application is marked as withdrawn and settled.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE NO 204 OF 2012
MARTIN GITONGA MUTHEE...............................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ISAIAH MURUNGI................................................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This Application is dated 20/11/2012. It seeks orders:-
1. THATthis Honourable Court be pleased to certify this application urgent and hear it ex-parte in the first instance.
2. THATthis Honourable Court be pleased to issue an Order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant by himself, his agents and servants from entering, cultivating, demolishing houses(s) or interfering with the Plaintiff's user and occupation of Land Parcel No. 1274, 3053 and 9641 Athiru Ruunjine Ndoleli Adjudication Section pending the hearing and determination of this suit or until further orders of this suit.
3. THATthis Honourable Court be pleased to empower and direct the O.C.S Laare Police Station to ensure compliance of any orders that may be issued herein.
4. THATcosts of this application be provided for.
The Application is buttressed by the Affidavit of MARTIN GITONGA MUTHEE and has the following grounds:-
1. The Plaintiff has been in actual occupation and user of the Suitland before and after the Land adjudication process in Athiru Ruunjine Ndoleli Areas.
2. The Plaintiff has filed an appeal to the Minister for Lands against the decision of the Land Adjudication Officer to award portion of the Suitland to the Defendant.
3. The Plaintiff has extensively developed the suit Land and has several properties thereon include (sic) a four roomed house.
4. The defendant has refused to obey the directive from the District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer not to interfere with the Plaintiff's occupation and user thereof pending the hearing of the Appeal by the Minister.
5. The Defendant is now fencing off the Suitland and has demolished a pit latrine, and threatened to demolish the main house thereon.
6. The Plaintiff stands to suffer great irreparable damage if these orders are not issued.
7. The defendant has never occupied the Suitlands and stand (sic) to suffer no damage or prejudice at all.
On 22/02/2016, the parties told the Court that they had agreed to have the application marked withdrawn and settled.
In the circumstances, the application is marked as withdrawn and settled. Costs sh0all be in the cause.
It is ordered as follows:-
The Plaintiff to fully comply with order 11 CPR within 30 days of today.
The Defendant to comply with order 11, CPR within 30 days after receipt of the Plaintiff's compliance documents.
Parties to obtain a mutually convenient date for directions from the Registry.
Delivered in open Court at Meru this 22nd day of February, 2016 in the presence of:-
CC: Lilian/Daniel
Harun Gitonga for the Plaintiff
Kaumbi for the Defendant
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE