[2012] KEHC 288 (KLR)

[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
Land and Property Injunctive Relief Trespass Ownership Dispute Title Deed Irreparable Harm

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moitalel Ole Dikir

Plaintiff

Ann Timanto Ene Loontubu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff stands to suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 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.