[2015] KEHC 1144 (KLR)
The court found that, in the absence of opposition and given the need to preserve the suit property, it was appropriate to grant a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the land pending the hearing and determination of the petition. The court considered the applicants' claim to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 1144 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Arithi Selfhelp Grazing Group through M'Inoti M'Rukaria (Chairman), James Mbogo Miruru (Secretary), Martha Koome (Treasurer); Respondent: The Land Adjudication Officer Imenti North/South/Meru Central & Buuri; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 28 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Interim Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- Temporary injunction granted; respondents given time to respond; costs in the cause.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Right to Property, Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Adjudication, Conservatory 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
Arithi Selfhelp Grazing Group through M'Inoti M'Rukaria (Chairman), James Mbogo Miruru (Secretary), Martha Koome (Treasurer)
Applicant
The Land Adjudication Officer Imenti North/South/Meru Central & Buuri
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Interim Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioners are entitled to a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the suit land pending determination of the petition.
- 2 Whether the petitioners have demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success regarding their claim to the land.
- 3 Whether the preservation of the suit property is necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, in the absence of opposition and given the need to preserve the suit property, it was appropriate to grant a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the land pending the hearing and determination of the petition. The court considered the applicants' claim to the land, the documentation of allocation, and the constitutional right to property. The preservation of the status quo was deemed necessary to prevent possible irreparable harm to the applicants' interests in the land. The respondents were granted 45 days to respond to the petition, and both parties were given leave to reply as necessary. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.
Court Disposition
Temporary injunction granted; respondents given time to respond; costs in the cause.
Orders
- Respondents are granted 45 days to respond to the petition.
- Parties are accorded liberal leave to reply as necessary.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
PETITION NO. 28 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 40 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCEL MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 1000 ACRES KIIRUA/KISIMA AREA
ARITHI SELFHELP GRAZING GROUP THRO'
M'INOTI M'RUKARIA (CHAIRMAN)
JAMES MBOGO MIRURU (SECRETARY)
MARTHA KOOME (TREASURER)....................PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICER IMENTI NORTH/SOUTH/
MERU CENTRAL &BUURI ….................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL.......2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
I N T E R I M R U L I N G
This application is brought Under Articles 19, 20, 22, 23, 40, 47 and 48 as read with articles 159, 258 and 259 of the Constitution and order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law. The application seeks orders:
THAT this application be certified urgent and be heard ex-parte in the first instance due to the urgency of the matter.
THAT an order of temporary injunction be issued restraining the 1st defendant/respondent by themselves, their agents, servants, or assigns from entering into, alienating, sub-dividing, altering boundaries, allocating or in any other way interfering with LAND PARCEL MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 1000 ACRES KIIRUA/KISIMA AREA pending the hearing and determination of this application, and until hearing this petition or until further orders of this honourable court.
THAT in the alternative a conservatory order be issued prohibiting the defendants/respondents from allocating the plaintiffs' parcel of land to any one claiming either on their own behalf or their behest of the defendants/respondents herein parcel measuring approximately 1000 acres KIIRUA/KISIMA area bordering Laikipia and Islamic foundation Pending the hearing and determination of this application, and until hearing petition or until further orders of this court.
THAT cost of this application be borne by the respondents.
The application is supported by the affidavit of M'inoti M'Rukaria, the applicant and has the following grounds:
THAT the land parcel rightfully belongs the petitioners.
THAT the land was allocated to the petitioners in 1982 and all proceedings of the said allocation are well documented.
THAT the petitioners have kept the relevant authorities on alert so as they can be granted legal ownership of the land through numerous correspondences but the same have not yielded any positive results.
THAT the entire process to deny the petitioners of land that is rightfully theirs is a scheme and conspiracy by the 1st and 2nd respondents.
THAT the respondents have hatched a conspiracy to deny the petitioners right to own property as guaranteed under the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
The application came up for interpartes hearing on 4. 11. 2015. Mrs Kaume for the petitioners told the Court that the application was not opposed. Miss Kungu for the respondents told the court that she needed 45 days to obtain instructions from her client, the Land Adjudication Officer, Imenti North/South Meru Central and Buuri.
I rule as follows:
the Respondents are granted 45 days to respond to the Petition.
The parties are accorded liberal leave to reply, if and as necessary.
As there is need to preserve the suit property, Prayer 2, THAT an order of temporary injunction be issued restraining the 1st defendant/Respondent by themselves, their agents servants, or assigns from entering into, alienating, subdividing, altering boundaries, allocating or in any other way interfering with the LAND PARCEL MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 1000 ACRES/KISIMA AREA pending the hearing and determinant of this application, is granted.
Costs shall be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 4th day of November, 2015 in the presence of:
Cc. Daniel/Lilian
Mrs Kaume for the Petitioners
Miss Kiongo for Respondents
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE