[2021] KEELC 384 (KLR)
The court found that the substantive prayers for a temporary injunction had been overtaken by events, as the application was only for interim orders pending inter partes hearing, and those orders were no longer live by the time of the ruling. The court could not grant relief on prayers that had already been spent....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 384 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Moses Chengo; Applicant: Fatuma Said Chengo; Applicant: Juma Said Chengo; Applicant: Hassan Mwero Saidi; Respondent: Nassib Ngudo; Respondent: Mechemunda Ngudo; Respondent: Ruwa Ngudo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case Case109 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed as overtaken by events; costs in the cause
- Judges
- LL Naikuni
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Ownership Disputes, Community Land, Status Quo Orders
- 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
Moses Chengo
Applicant
Fatuma Said Chengo
Applicant
Juma Said Chengo
Applicant
Hassan Mwero Saidi
Applicant
Nassib Ngudo
Respondent
Mechemunda Ngudo
Respondent
Ruwa Ngudo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiffs/Applicants are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with the suit property pending hearing of the application.
- 2 Whether the application for injunction has been overtaken by events and is therefore moot.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the substantive prayers for a temporary injunction had been overtaken by events, as the application was only for interim orders pending inter partes hearing, and those orders were no longer live by the time of the ruling. The court could not grant relief on prayers that had already been spent. The only remaining issue was costs, and since the Plaintiffs had already obtained a status quo order and both parties participated in the application, the court exercised its discretion to order that each party bear its own costs. The application was dismissed as moot, and the matter was set down for hearing on the merits.
Court Disposition
application dismissed as overtaken by events; costs in the cause
Orders
- The Notice of Motion application dated 7th June 2021 is dismissed as overtaken by events.
- The matter to be fixed for hearing and final determination within 90 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND COURT
AT MOMBASA
ELC NO 109 OF 2021
MOSES CHENGO...................................................................1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
FATUMA SAID CHENGO.....................................................2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
JUMA SAID CHENGO.........................................................3RD PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
HASSAN MWERO SAIDI.....................................................4TH PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
- VERSUS -
NASSIB NGUDO..............................................................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
MECHEMUNDA NGUDO............................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RUWA NGUDO..............................................................3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. For determination before this Honorable Court is the Notice of Motion application dated 7th June, 2021. It is brought by the Plaintiffs/Applicants under the provisions of Order 40 Rule 1, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B, 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
THE APPLICANTS’ CASE
2. The Application seeks for the orders of temporary injunction against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants herein from dealing with the suit property in any way pending the hearing of this application inter parties as well as costs of the application. The Plaintiffs/Applicants claim to be the owners of all that parcel of land located at Mkilo Village, Kalalani Sub County having inherited it from their deceased father Said Chengo. They claimed that the Defendants were threatening to evict them from the suit land through a land conflict resolution committee held on 17th May 2021. The Plaintiffs/Applicants pleaded with court to restrain the actions of the Defendants as they stood to suffer irreparable loss and damage yet they had a prima facie case with a probability of success.
3. The Plaintiffs/Applicants application was opposed by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent on behalf of the Defendants. Ruwa Ngudo affirmed a replying affidavit and filed it in court on 21st July 2021. He claimed that the suit property belonged to himself and the Ngudo Muryani Habo family indeed he held the Assistant County Commissioner had on 17th May 2021 ruled that the land belonged to the Ngudo family after conducting a site visit and hearing all witnesses. That the continued occupation of the Plaintiffs on the suit property tantamounted to trespass and illegal as per the said ruling. He claimed the suit property to be community land and that one could only acquire ownership through membership which the Plaintiff were not. He urged court to dismiss the application as the Applicants had not approached the court with clean hands having failed to disclose the ruling by Assistant County Commissioner Officer DO). Additionally, they contended the application never met the threshold for a granting of temporary injunction.
4. On 26th July 2021 Court directed that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION.
5. I have carefully read and considered the pleadings herein. The injunctive orders sought herein ‘pending the hearing of this application inter parties’. The Learned Counsel for some reasons or other not very clear to me, for the Plaintiffs/Applicants omitted the prayer of injunctive orders pending the hearing and determination of the suit. Essentially, the application having been fixed for inter parte hearing and directions taken, prayer number 1 and 2 were spend and were overtaken by events. I cannot make a determination on orders that are no longer alive. As the Plaintiffs/Applicants is urging me to do. I have not been requested to do anything in the interviewing period between now and the hearing of the suit. The Plaintiffs/Applicants cannot hold this court at ransom and in abeyance as it were.
6. For this reason therefore, I am only left with prayer number 3, which is on costs for this application. Section 27 of Civil Procedure Act provides that costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court and that the costs of any action shall follow the event unless the court has a good reason to determine otherwise. Since court ordered status quo to be maintained on 14th June 2021 and the Plaintiff/Applicant obtained the relief sought and both parties have been involved in the application, the costs of this application ought to be in the cause.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya, justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities, and for expediency sake of the subject matter, I do order as follows:-
a. THAT the Notice of Motion application dated 7th June 2021 has been overtaken by events and thus it is dismissed hereof;
b. THAT to avoid causing any void, the matter to be fixed for hearing and final determination within the next 90 days from this day.
c. THAT the matter to be mentioned on 18th January, 2022 for pre trial directions pursuant to the provisions of Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
d. THAT each party to bear its own costs.
IT IS ORDERED accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
NAIKUNI J
JUDGE
ENVIROMNENT AND LAND COURT
In the presence of:-
M/s. Yumna, Court Assistant
Non Appearance for the Advocate for the Plaintiffs/Applicants.
Non Appearance for the Advocates for the Defendants/Respondents.