[2017] KEELC 1719 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success because the record did not clarify the description or ownership of the access road in question. The access road was not shown to be part of parcel number KAKAMEGA/SHIVAKALA/2060, and thus the applicant did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1719 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Maurice Hudson Imonje; Respondent: Silvanus Mukoto; Respondent: Vincent Muhati
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 73 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Access to Land, Land Ownership Disputes
- 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
Maurice Hudson Imonje
Applicant
Silvanus Mukoto
Respondent
Vincent Muhati
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success because the record did not clarify the description or ownership of the access road in question. The access road was not shown to be part of parcel number KAKAMEGA/SHIVAKALA/2060, and thus the applicant did not meet the threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for interlocutory injunction is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA
ELC CASE NO. 73 OF 2016
MAURICE HUDSON IMONJE ::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
SILVANUS MUKOTO :::::::::::::::::::: 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
VINCENT MUHATI :::::::::::::::::::::: 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant has brought this certificate of urgency dated 31st May 2017 for the following reasons;
1. The plaintiff/applicant cannot smoothly access his residential home situated on parcel of land better known as L.R. NO. KAKAMEGA/SHIVAKALA/2060.
2. The defendants/respondents have persisted into their unlawful acts.
3. The Defendants/Respondents are violent and have vowed to harm the plaintiff/applicant and his immediate members of the family and property at large.
4. The cause of action of this matter has persisted thereby causing a lot of concern and anxiety to the plaintiff/applicant.
5. The plaintiff/applicant has mature cane growing of parcel of land better known as KAKAMEGA/SHIVAKALA/2060 ready for harvest but the same cannot be ferried to miller due to unlawful acts by the defendant/respondent.
6. The plaintiff/applicant is likely to suffer irreparable damages if the cane will continue laying un-harvested on the field.
The applicant submitted that, he has mature cane growing on his parcel of land better known as L.R. NO. KAKAMEGA/SHIVAKALA/2060 is ready for harvest. That he has since been issued with harvesting permit from M/S. WEST KENYA SUGAR CO. LTD(Annexed is a copy of the permit marked MHI-1). That he is in a predicament as he cannot harvest the cane due to closure of the access road by the defendants/respondents.That if the mature cane cannot be harvested now then it will go to a waste and therefore occasion him irreparable damages. That he has invested heavily in the 2 acres of land under cane crop. He now seeks an injunction for the defendant/respondents not to block the road. The respondents were served but failed to attend court and the matter proceeded exparte.
This court has considered the plaintiff’s/applicant’s submissions and the supporting affidavit therein. The application being one that seeks injunctions, has to be considered within the principles set out in the case of GIELLA VS CASSMAN BROWN & CO. LTD 1973 E.A 358 and which are:-
1. The applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success at the trial
2. The applicant must show that unless the order is granted, he will suffer loss which cannot be adequately compensated in damages and,
3. If in doubt, the Court will decide the application on a balance of convenience.
It must also be added that an interlocutory injunction is an equitable relief and the Court may decline to grant it if it can be shown that the applicant’s conduct pertinent to the subject matter of the suit does not meet the approval of a Court of equity.
This court has perused the documents in the file in support of the applicant’s case. It is not clear from the record the description of the access road and/or the ownership of the same. I find that the applicant has failed to show a prima facie case with a probability of success at the trial. The said access road is not the parcel number No. KAKAMEGA/SHIVAKALA/2060. This application has no merit and I dismiss it with costs.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA IN OPEN COURT THIS27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017.
N.A. MATHEKA
JUDGE