[2023] KEELC 20435 (KLR)
The court declined to grant restraining orders on the basis that the case has been pending for over 13 years, and there is insufficient information regarding the registration and current status of the suit properties. The court emphasized that parties should prioritize the prosecution of the main suit rather than...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 20435 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Francis Ngugi Mburu; Plaintiff: Nyamweya Iries Abuya; Plaintiff: Julia Mwaniki Waititu; Plaintiff: Dominic Muindi Muya; Plaintiff: Esther Wangui Kamau; Plaintiff: Teresia Wangui Kamau; Plaintiff: Silas Ondicho Manu; Plaintiff: Geoffrey Mwaura Kaigai; Defendant: Zucchini Holidings Limited; Defendant: Minto Travels Limited; Defendant: Nerifa Holdings Limited; Respondent: Equity Bank
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 91 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Pretrial Directions and Interlocutory Application for Restraining Orders
- Outcome
- Application for restraining orders declined; directions issued for hearing and mention dates.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Service of Process, Compliance With Court Orders
- 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
Francis Ngugi Mburu
Plaintiff
Nyamweya Iries Abuya
Plaintiff
Julia Mwaniki Waititu
Plaintiff
Dominic Muindi Muya
Plaintiff
Esther Wangui Kamau
Plaintiff
Teresia Wangui Kamau
Plaintiff
Silas Ondicho Manu
Plaintiff
Geoffrey Mwaura Kaigai
Plaintiff
Zucchini Holidings Limited
Defendant
Minto Travels Limited
Defendant
Nerifa Holdings Limited
Defendant
Equity Bank
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Pretrial Directions and Interlocutory Application for Restraining Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to restraining orders against dealings on parcel 209/9832.
- 2 Whether service upon the 1st and 2nd defendants was properly effected.
- 3 Whether only documents filed in compliance with the court's directions of June 20, 2023 should be considered.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant restraining orders on the basis that the case has been pending for over 13 years, and there is insufficient information regarding the registration and current status of the suit properties. The court emphasized that parties should prioritize the prosecution of the main suit rather than interlocutory matters that delay the trial. The court further held that only documents filed in compliance with its directions of June 20, 2023, would be considered, and confirmed that service by substituted service had been properly effected. Directions were given for parties to take a hearing date and a mention date to confirm compliance with previous court orders.
Court Disposition
Application for restraining orders declined; directions issued for hearing and mention dates.
Orders
- No restraining orders granted.
- Parties to take a hearing date in open court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
Mburu & 7 others v Zucchini Holidings Limited; Minto Travels Limited & another (Proposed Defendant); Equity Bank (Intended Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 91 of 2010) [2023] KEELC 20435 (KLR) (28 September 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 20435 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 91 of 2010
LN Mbugua, J
September 28, 2023
Between
Francis Ngugi Mburu
1st Plaintiff
Nyamweya Iries Abuya
2nd Plaintiff
Julia Mwaniki Waititu
3rd Plaintiff
Dominic Muindi Muya
4th Plaintiff
Esther Wangui Kamau
5th Plaintiff
Teresia Wangui Kamau
6th Plaintiff
Silas Ondicho Manu
7th Plaintiff
Geoffrey Mwaura Kaigai
8th Plaintiff
and
Zucchini Holidings Limited
Defendant
and
Minto Travels Limited
Proposed Defendant
Nerifa Holdings Limited
Proposed Defendant
and
Equity Bank
Intended Interested Party
Ruling
1. This matter was scheduled for pretrial directions on September 26, 2023. The plaintiffs (1-6th) and the 3rd defendant don’t seem to agree on what has been filed. On this issue the court will be guided by its own orders of June 20, 2023 which were self executing. Thus only documents filed in compliance with the directions of that day of June 20, 2022 shall be considered.
2. On the issue of service upon 1st and 2nd defendants, the court confirms that indeed service by substituted service was effected as per the affidavit of service dated September 25, 2023.
3. The plaintiffs (1-6th) have sought an order restraining any dealings on parcel 209/9832. However, this case is over 13 years old, and the court is not seized of the nature and extent of the registration as well as the ground status of the suit properties. Parties should focus on the prosecution of the main suit and not on interlocutory matters which derail the trial.
4. The court thus declines to grant any restraining orders. Instead the court gives directions for parties to take both a hearing date as well as a mention date in open court to confirm the extent of compliance with court’s directions of June 20, 2023.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Amaiyo for plaintiff (6 of them)Opole for 3rd DefendantCourt Assistant: Eddel