[2012] KEHC 288 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, as he is the registered owner of the subject parcel of land and the defendant had entered and commenced activities thereon without his consent. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff stood to suffer irreparable...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 288 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Moitalel Ole Dikir; Defendant: Ann Timanto Ene Loontubu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 265 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
- Outcome
- Application for temporary injunction granted.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Trespass, Ownership Dispute, Title Deed, Irreparable Harm
- 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
Moitalel Ole Dikir
Plaintiff
Ann Timanto Ene Loontubu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff stands to suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, as he is the registered owner of the subject parcel of land and the defendant had entered and commenced activities thereon without his consent. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff stood to suffer irreparable harm if the defendant was not restrained, as continued interference with the land could not be adequately compensated by damages. Applying the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favored the grant of a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Court Disposition
Application for temporary injunction granted.
Orders
- A temporary injunction is issued restraining the defendant, her agents, and servants from entering, trespassing, transferring, selling, alienating, disposing, tilling, cultivating, erecting structures, leasing, or in any way interfering with the subject parcel of land CIS MARA/ROTIAN/263 pending hearing and...
- Costs to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nakuru
Civil Case 265 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][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;"Calibri","sans-serif";} </style> <![endif]
MOITALEL OLE DIKIR.............................................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ANN TIMANTO ENE LOONTUBU.....................................................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
This is the plaintiffs notice of motion dated 23rd July 2012 under certificate of urgency seeking interim orders to restrain the Defendant by herself, her agents, servants from entering, trespassing, transferring, selling, alienating, erecting structures, leasing or in any way from interfering with the subject parcel of land title CIS MARA/ROTIAN/263 hereinafter referred to as the “subject parcel of land” and a copy of the said interim orders be served upon the OCS Narok Police Station for effective compliance pending inter-parties hearing of the application. He also applied for a temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of the suit restraining the Defendant herself, her agents, servants from entering, trespassing, transferring, selling, alienating, disposing, tilling, cultivating, erecting structures, leasing or in any way from interfering with the subject parcel of land and a copy to be served upon the OCS Narok Police Station for effective compliance.
The Application is anchored on the affidavit of Moitalel Ole Dikir sworn on 23rd July 2012. The grounds are that the Plaintiff is the owner of the subject parcel of land measuring approximately 4. 05 Hectares, having bought the subject parcel of land from one Kepela Ole Koroi which was subdivided from a mother title CIS-MARA/ROTIAN/255. He was however shocked upon visiting his land to find the Defendant had illegally entered into the subject parcel of land and was in the process of erecting posts and had started cultivating on the land without the plaintiffs consent. To authenticate ownership he visited the surveyor Narok District and obtained a map of the land showing that he was the registered owner of the subject parcel of land. He avers that his title deed to the said parcel of land cannot be severed and/or interfered with and that the action by the Defendant breaches his right to own property as envisaged in the constitution and hence this application. The plaintiff states that he has made several requests to the Defendant to vacate the subject parcel of land but the Defendant has refused and continued forcefully to cultivate on the subject parcel of land without his consent.
The Plaintiff's application was certified urgent on 23rd July 2012 and the Plaintiff directed to serve for inter parties hearing on 14th November 2012.
The Defendant was served with the application dated 23rd July 2012 and an affidavit of service filed on 11th November 2012 sworn by Richard Kipkirui Kerich.
To be granted an injunction the applicantmust satisfy the principles set out clearly in Giella Vr Cassman Brown and Company Ltd ( 1973) E.A 358. He must show a prima facie case with a probability of success. Secondly, that he stands to suffer irreparable harm not compensable in damages, and thirdly, if in doubt, the court must assess the balance of convenience.
I find that the Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and he may suffer irreparable loss if the orders sought are not granted.
I therefore allow the application dated 23rd July 2012, and orderas follows:-
(1) THAT pending the hearing and determination of the suitthis Honourable Court be pleased to issue orders of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant by herself, her agents, servants from entering, trespassing, transferring, selling, alienating, disposing, tilling, cultivating, erecting structures, leasing or in any way from interfering with the subject parcel of land known as CIS MARA/ROTIAN/263 and a copy hereof be served upon the OCS Narok Police Station for effective compliance.
(2) That costs be in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 30th day of November 2012
L. N. WAITHAKA
JUDGE
PRESENT
Hon. Lady JusticeL Waithaka
CC: Ray
Both counsels : absent