[2016] KEELC 774 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 774 (KLR)

The court adopted the consent of the parties as its order, allowing the defendants to harvest their crops within two months and then vacate the disputed land, leaving the plaintiff in possession pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The application for interlocutory injunction and inhibition was thus...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 774 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Moffat Gichuru; Defendant: M'Imanyara M'Murithi; Defendant: Wilson Mwirigi; Defendant: Bundi Gichuru
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 54 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application Ruling on Injunction and Inhibition Orders, Resolved by Consent
Outcome
Application resolved by consent; orders adopted as court order.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Land Inhibition Orders, Adverse Possession, Trespass, Interlocutory Relief
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Land Inhibition Orders Adverse Possession Trespass Interlocutory Relief

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

Moffat Gichuru

Plaintiff

M'Imanyara M'Murithi

Defendant

Wilson Mwirigi

Defendant

Bundi Gichuru

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application Ruling on Injunction and Inhibition Orders, Resolved by Consent

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with land parcels ABOGETA/U-KITHANGARI/2541 and 2514 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether orders of inhibition should be issued to preserve the subject land parcels.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' actions amount to trespass and threaten the plaintiff's peaceful possession.

Ratio Decidendi

The court adopted the consent of the parties as its order, allowing the defendants to harvest their crops within two months and then vacate the disputed land, leaving the plaintiff in possession pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The application for interlocutory injunction and inhibition was thus resolved by consent, preserving the subject matter and status quo. The court's decision was guided by the need to prevent further conflict, maintain peace, and ensure the land is not alienated or interfered with before the substantive issues are determined at trial.

Court Disposition

Application resolved by consent; orders adopted as court order.

Orders

  • Defendants allowed to harvest cabbages and carrots within two months from 19/05/2016 and thereafter vacate the land.
  • Plaintiff to remain in possession of the land pending hearing and determination of the suit.