[2024] KEELC 7528 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 7528 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case as the ownership of the suit property was in dispute and the defendants had commenced construction of permanent structures thereon. The defendants did not oppose the application, and the plaintiffs provided photographic evidence of ongoing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 7528 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Benson Chege Mbuthia; Plaintiff: Simon Muchira Gathoki; Plaintiff: Lucas Ng'ang'a John; Plaintiff: Mpeketoni Jua Kali Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Limited; Defendant: Daniel Kilonzi; Defendant: Charles Maina Mtiva; Defendant: Peter Ikenya Kweri; Defendant: John Macharia; Defendant: Peter Njau
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 16 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Hearing and Determination of Suit
Outcome
Application for temporary injunction allowed.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Trespass to Land, Ownership Disputes, Temporary Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Trespass to Land Ownership Disputes Temporary Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benson Chege Mbuthia

Plaintiff

Simon Muchira Gathoki

Plaintiff

Lucas Ng'ang'a John

Plaintiff

Mpeketoni Jua Kali Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Limited

Plaintiff

Daniel Kilonzi

Defendant

Charles Maina Mtiva

Defendant

Peter Ikenya Kweri

Defendant

John Macharia

Defendant

Peter Njau

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Hearing and Determination of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case as the ownership of the suit property was in dispute and the defendants had commenced construction of permanent structures thereon. The defendants did not oppose the application, and the plaintiffs provided photographic evidence of ongoing construction. The court held that allowing the construction to continue would potentially cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs' interests in the land, which could not be adequately compensated by damages. In applying the principles for granting interlocutory injunctions, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending the hearing and...

Court Disposition

Application for temporary injunction allowed.

Orders

  • An order of temporary injunction is issued restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, representatives, assigns, and any other person claiming under them from interfering with, trespassing on, constructing, setting up structures, fencing, digging out foundation and/or from adversely dealing with Plot No....
  • The defendants shall bear the costs of the application.