[2013] KEHC 3937 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's long-standing practice of tending and plucking tea on Parcel No. ABOGETA/UPPER-KITHANGARI/709 was not disputed by the respondent. This established a factual nexus between the two parcels in dispute. Given the risk of waste and the need to preserve the subject matter of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3937 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Miriti M'Ithinya; Respondent: Njagi Mbogori; Applicant: Kirimi M'Buuru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 60 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Environmental and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Status Quo Orders
- Outcome
- Interlocutory application allowed; status quo order granted.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Land Disputes, Possession and Use of Land
- 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
Miriti M'Ithinya
Appellant
Njagi Mbogori
Respondent
Kirimi M'Buuru
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Environmental and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Status Quo Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order maintaining the status quo regarding the plucking of tea on Parcel No. ABOGETA/UPPER-KITHANGARI/709 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
- 2 Whether the respondent's actions in interfering with the applicant's use of the land were lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's long-standing practice of tending and plucking tea on Parcel No. ABOGETA/UPPER-KITHANGARI/709 was not disputed by the respondent. This established a factual nexus between the two parcels in dispute. Given the risk of waste and the need to preserve the subject matter of the appeal, the court determined that it was fair, just, and equitable to grant the order maintaining the status quo as of 1st November 2012, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The court thus granted prayer number 4 of the application dated 15th November 2012, with costs in the cause.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory application allowed; status quo order granted.
Orders
- Prayer number 4 in the application dated 15th November, 2012 is granted.
- Costs be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Meru
Environmental & Land Case 60 of 2000 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif]
MIRITI M'ITHINYA..........................................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
NJAGI MBOGORI.....................................................................................RESPONDENT
KIRIMI M'BUURU...........................................................................................APPLICANT
R U L I N G
This application was brought to court under Order 40 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules of Cap 21, Laws of Kenya.
According to the applicant, the appeal in this case had been slated for hearing on 1. 11. 2012 when it did not take off. On this day the respondent descended on the tea bushes the defendant had been plucking for the last 28 years. According to the applicant, the respondent's actions were inimical to the interests of the applicant as he was unable to pluck tea from Parcel No. ABOGETA/UPPER-KITHANGARI/709 while he continued to enjoy the applicant's tea on ABOGETA/UPPER-KITHANGARI/707. The applicant felt that it was only fair, just and equitable that the status quo obtaining by the 1st November, 2012 be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein. The Applicant stressed that the tea in question was not being plucked by either the applicant or the respondent. It was simply going to waste.
According to the respondent the appeal related to Parcel No. ABOGETA/UPPER-KITHANGARI/707 and not ABOGETA/UPPER-KITHANGARI/709. Since the latter parcel of land belonged to the respondent, the applicant could not harvest tea on this land.
I have examined the positions taken by the two parties. I note that the respondent does not dispute that the applicant had been tending to and plucking tea on parcel NO.ABOGETA/UPPER-KITHANGARI/709. This undisputed fact provides a nexus between land parcels ABOGETA/UPPER-KITHANGARI/709 and ABOGETA/UPPER-KITHANGARI/707.
In the circumstances, I make the following orders:
1. Prayer number 4 in the application dated 15th November, 2012 is granted
2. Costs be in the Cause.
Written and signed at Meru this 28th day of March, 2013.
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 24th day of April 2013 in the presence of:
Carl Peters Mbaabu h/b for Gikunda for Appellant
Mr. Mwanzia for Applicant absent
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE
[if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Liberation Serif","serif";} </style> <![endif]