[2019] KEELC 1927 (KLR)
The court found that granting the Defendant's application to utilize 2 acres of the disputed land before the main suit is heard would substantially prejudice the Plaintiffs' claim for adverse possession, which hinges on uninterrupted occupation. The court emphasized the need to avoid making determinations at the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 1927 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Moses Muchira Njeru; Plaintiff: Stephen Mugo Muthii Mwatha; Defendant: Francis Mureithi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 156 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes
- 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 Muchira Njeru
Plaintiff
Stephen Mugo Muthii Mwatha
Plaintiff
Francis Mureithi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Defendant should be allowed to utilize 2 acres out of the 5 acres of L.R. No. MWEA/MURINDUKO/824 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether granting the orders sought would prejudice the Plaintiffs' claim for adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that granting the Defendant's application to utilize 2 acres of the disputed land before the main suit is heard would substantially prejudice the Plaintiffs' claim for adverse possession, which hinges on uninterrupted occupation. The court emphasized the need to avoid making determinations at the interlocutory stage that could affect the substantive rights of the parties. The appropriate course is to maintain the status quo and allow the issues to be resolved at the full hearing, ensuring impartiality and fairness to both parties.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 30th March 2019 is dismissed.
- The costs of the application shall be borne by the Defendant/Applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KERUGOYA
ELC CASE NO. 156 OF 2017
MOSES MUCHIRA NJERU.....................................1ST PLAINTIFF
STEPHEN MUGO MUTHII MWATHA.................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FRANCIS MUREITHI...................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
The application before me is the Notice of Motion dated 30th March 2019 brought under Section 1A, 1B and 3A Civil Procedure Act. The Applicant is seeking the following orders:
1. Spent.
2. That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order allowing the Defendant to utilize 2 acres out of the 5 acres of portion of L.R. No. MWEA/MURINDUKO/824 pending hearing and determination of this application.
3. That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order allowing the Defendant to utilize 2 acres out of his 5 acres of portion of L.R. No. MWEA/MURINDUKO/824 pending hearing and determination of this suit.
4. That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue any orders to meet the ends of justice.
5. That the Plaintiffs/Respondents do pay costs.
The application is supported by grounds shown on the face of the said application and an affidavit sworn by Francis Mureithi, the Defendant herein. The said application is opposed with a replying affidavit sworn by Moses Muchira Njeru, the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent.
I have considered the application and the supporting affidavit. I have also taken into consideration the rival replying affidavit and the submissions by counsels for the parties. The Plaintiff’s claim in this case is for a declaration that he has acquired the Defendant’s entire land parcel No. MWEA/MURINDUKO/824 by Adverse possession and that they be registered as proprietors. The Respondent filed a replying affidavit denying the Plaintiff’s claim stating that the Plaintiffs have never lived on the suit land and their claim that they have been living there for the last 23 years is therefore baseless. The Defendant further averred that he resides on the suit land after it was passed over to him by his late father. If indeed the averments by the Applicant in his replying affidavit that he resides in the suit land is true, why does he now require consent of this Court to utilize 2 acres out of the five (5) acres of the suit land? I am also alive to the claim by the Plaintiff for adverse possession which requires one to prove that he has been in actual occupation and possession of the land in dispute for a period not less than 12 years. If this Court were to allow the orders sought before the matter is heard and determined, it would prejudice the Plaintiffs claim in a substantial way. In order to remain neutral and impartial umpire, it would be better and in the best interest of justice not to make determination of issues at interlocutory stage but rather wait until the issues are resolved at the full hearing.
The orders that comments in this application is to have it dismissed which I hereby do. The costs of the application shall be borne by the Defendant/Applicant in any event. It is so ordered.
READ and SIGNED in open Court at Kerugoya this 19th July, 2019.
E.C. CHERONO
ELC JUDGE
19TH JULY, 2019
In the presence of:
1. M/S Githaiga holding brief for Makworo
2. Ms Ann Thungu holding brief for Kimotho
3. Mbogo – Court clerk