[2021] KEELC 4346 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 4346 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case by demonstrating exclusive possession and the construction of her homestead on the suit land, which was not rebutted by the respondent. The court held that the applicant stood to suffer irreparable harm that could not be adequately compensated by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 4346 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Millicent Wairimu Kathigi; Defendant: Peter Kimani
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 21 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application allowed; injunction and inhibition orders granted for one year.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Inhibition Orders, Adverse Possession, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Inhibition Orders Adverse Possession Land 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Millicent Wairimu Kathigi

Plaintiff

Peter Kimani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an injunction against the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of inhibition to preserve the suit land pending determination of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case by demonstrating exclusive possession and the construction of her homestead on the suit land, which was not rebutted by the respondent. The court held that the applicant stood to suffer irreparable harm that could not be adequately compensated by damages if the orders were not granted. The court further reasoned that an inhibition order was necessary to preserve the suit land and prevent its alienation during the pendency of the adverse possession claim, as alienation could complicate the dispute. Consequently, both the injunction and inhibition orders were granted for a period of one year, with costs to abide the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; injunction and inhibition orders granted for one year.

Orders

  • An order of injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with land parcel no. Nyaki/Mulathankari/148 is granted for one year.
  • An order of inhibition in respect of land parcel no. Nyaki/Mulathankari/148 is granted for one year.