[2016] KEELC 795 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 795 (KLR)

The court found that the Defendant is the registered proprietor of the suit property, as evidenced by the Indenture registered in its favour in 1983. The Plaintiff failed to explain why no rent was ever collected from the Defendant if the Defendant was merely a tenant. The Plaintiff did not establish a prima facie...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 795 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mohamed Rafik Ayub (suing as an administrator of the estate of Ayub Ahmed); Defendant: Pentecostal Assemblies of God
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 225 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction and Stay Application
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Ownership Dispute, Injunctive Relief, Land Registration, Adverse Possession
Source Language
en
Land and Property Ownership Dispute Injunctive Relief Land Registration Adverse Possession

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Rafik Ayub (suing as an administrator of the estate of Ayub Ahmed)

Plaintiff

Pentecostal Assemblies of God

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction and Stay Application

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from dealing with the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is the lawful registered proprietor of the suit property known as Plot number 93/2 Malindi.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant is the registered proprietor of the suit property, as evidenced by the Indenture registered in its favour in 1983. The Plaintiff failed to explain why no rent was ever collected from the Defendant if the Defendant was merely a tenant. The Plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, nor did he demonstrate irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted, given that the Defendant has been in possession since 1983. The evidence supported the Defendant's ownership and long-standing occupation, and the Plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's Application dated 8th December, 2015 is dismissed with costs.