[2016] KEELC 465 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 465 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case by demonstrating ownership of the suit property and showing that electric poles were erected on the land. The Defendant, being the only entity authorized to erect such poles, did not satisfactorily identify the 'unknown' persons responsible and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 465 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mombasa Auto Care Limited; Defendant: Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 162 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction allowed.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Trespass to Land, Proprietary Rights, Wayleaves and Easements
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Temporary Injunctions Trespass to Land Proprietary Rights Wayleaves and Easements

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

Mombasa Auto Care Limited

Plaintiff

Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant or its agents trespassed and erected electric poles on the Plaintiff's land without consent.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from further encroachment pending determination of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case by demonstrating ownership of the suit property and showing that electric poles were erected on the land. The Defendant, being the only entity authorized to erect such poles, did not satisfactorily identify the 'unknown' persons responsible and admitted to removing the poles. The court concluded that unless restrained, the Defendant or its agents might repeat the encroachment. Therefore, the Plaintiff was entitled to a temporary injunction to protect its proprietary rights pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction allowed.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining the Defendant, its servants, agents, employees or any other person acting on its behalf from trespassing, encroaching, or erecting electric poles on plot no.123 Mtangani pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
  • The costs of the application are provided for.