[2015] KEELC 234 (KLR)

[2015] KEELC 234 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success because the subdivision of the land in question was not in accordance with the decree, which required division among seven persons, not two. The defendants failed to controvert the plaintiffs' evidence or provide any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELC 234 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mturiaru Mtugachara; Plaintiff: Hannah Mukami Kimatta; Defendant: Attorney General; Defendant: District Surveyor Nyandarua; Defendant: District Land Registrar Nyandarua; Defendant: Estate of Joseph Kimemia Migwi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 297 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Application for injunction allowed.
Judges
MA Silau
Legal Topics
Land Subdivision, Execution of Decree, Injunctive Relief, Land Disputes Tribunal Awards
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Subdivision Execution of Decree Injunctive Relief Land Disputes Tribunal Awards

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

Mturiaru Mtugachara

Plaintiff

Hannah Mukami Kimatta

Plaintiff

Attorney General

Defendant

District Surveyor Nyandarua

Defendant

District Land Registrar Nyandarua

Defendant

Estate of Joseph Kimemia Migwi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the subdivision of land parcel Nyandarua/Sabugo/301 into parcels 3615 and 3616 was in accordance with the decree adopted from the Land Disputes Tribunal award.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining further subdivision or disposition of the suit land.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success because the subdivision of the land in question was not in accordance with the decree, which required division among seven persons, not two. The defendants failed to controvert the plaintiffs' evidence or provide any explanation for the deviation from the decree. As such, the court determined that it was just and equitable to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining further subdivision or disposition of the suit land and to issue an order of inhibition pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Court Disposition

Application for injunction allowed.

Orders

  • There shall be no further subdivisions of land parcels Nyandarua/Sabugo/3615 and 3616.
  • An order of inhibition is issued, inhibiting the registration of any disposition in the register of these two parcels of land.