[2014] KEELC 286 (KLR)

[2014] KEELC 286 (KLR)

The court found that the Defendant/Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. There was insufficient evidence that the Defendant jointly constructed the three-bedroomed house with the Plaintiff or that the Plaintiff was developing or disposing of the other two plots. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEELC 286 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Monika Kioko; Defendant: Renson Munga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
31 July 2014
Case Number
Land Case 180 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Ownership Dispute, Cohabitation Property Rights, Possession, Land Title, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
english
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Ownership Dispute Cohabitation Property Rights Possession Land Title Balance of Convenience

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monika Kioko

Plaintiff

Renson Munga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant/Applicant is entitled to temporary injunctive orders restraining the Plaintiff from constructing, disposing, or interfering with the suit premises pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant/Applicant has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an injunction.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm favour the grant of the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant/Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. There was insufficient evidence that the Defendant jointly constructed the three-bedroomed house with the Plaintiff or that the Plaintiff was developing or disposing of the other two plots. The Plaintiff had been in possession of the house since 2011/12, and the Defendant would not suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The balance of convenience favoured the Plaintiff/Respondent, and the Defendant's application for injunctive relief was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Defendant's Application dated 22nd August, 2013 is dismissed with costs.