[2014] KEHC 638 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 638 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case by demonstrating ownership and long-standing possession of the suit land, as well as evidence of developments and community engagement. The threat by the respondent to forcibly take over a portion of the land posed a real risk of irreparable harm...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 638 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Meru Ginnery (1994) Ltd; Defendant: The Chairman Gaitu Self Help Health Centre
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 136 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
interlocutory injunction granted
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Trespass to Land, Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Trespass to Land Ownership Disputes

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meru Ginnery (1994) Ltd

Plaintiff

The Chairman Gaitu Self Help Health Centre

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from entering or interfering with land parcel L/P ABOTHUGUCHI/630 pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case by demonstrating ownership and long-standing possession of the suit land, as well as evidence of developments and community engagement. The threat by the respondent to forcibly take over a portion of the land posed a real risk of irreparable harm to the applicant, including potential loss of land and equipment. The respondents, having been duly served, failed to appear or contest the application. Applying the principles for granting interlocutory injunctions, the court determined that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo and protecting the applicant's interests pending the hearing and...

Court Disposition

interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • An order is granted restraining, stopping, prohibiting and/or barring the respondent, his agents, employees, servants and/or any person whatsoever from entering, trespassing, invading and/or taking out any operations and/or activities on all the land known as L/P ABOTHUGUCHI/630 until the hearing and determination...
  • Costs shall be in the cause.