[2005] KEHC 2616 (KLR)
The court found that, in the absence of any opposition or evidence to the contrary from the respondent, it was proper to maintain the status quo by restraining the respondent from evicting or interfering with the applicants' possession of the suit land until the appeal is determined. The applicants are in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2616 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mugo Njore; Appellant: Teresia Wangechi Mugo; Appellant: Jemima Wanjiru Mugo; Appellant: Peter Muthii Mugo; Appellant: Kariithi Mugo; Respondent: Miano Njore
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 30 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for temporary injunction granted.
- Judges
- I Lenaola
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Possession of Land, Appeal Stay, Eviction Prevention
- 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
Mugo Njore
Appellant
Teresia Wangechi Mugo
Appellant
Jemima Wanjiru Mugo
Appellant
Peter Muthii Mugo
Appellant
Kariithi Mugo
Appellant
Miano Njore
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a temporary injunction should issue to restrain the respondent from evicting or interfering with the applicants' possession of the suit land pending determination of the appeal.
- 2 Whether the balance of convenience favors maintaining the applicants in possession until the appeal is heard.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, in the absence of any opposition or evidence to the contrary from the respondent, it was proper to maintain the status quo by restraining the respondent from evicting or interfering with the applicants' possession of the suit land until the appeal is determined. The applicants are in possession, and eviction would be prejudicial to them, while the respondent has not demonstrated any prejudice. The balance of convenience thus favors the applicants. The court therefore granted the temporary injunction as prayed in the application.
Court Disposition
Application for temporary injunction granted.
Orders
- A temporary injunction is issued restraining the respondent, his servants, agents and/or anybody claiming through him from evicting or otherwise interfering with the applicants' possession of title No. L.R. No. Mutira/Kathare/842 until the appeal is determined.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU CIVIL APPEAL 30 OF 2003
MUGO NJORE ) TERESIA WANGECHI MUGO ) JEMIMA WANJIRU MUGO ) PETER MUTHII MUGO ) KARIITHI MUGO )…….. APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS VERSUS MIANO NJORE ……………………………………….RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is an Application brought under Order XLI Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant seeks orders that a temporary injunction do issue to “restrain the Respondent by himself, his servants, agents and/or anybody claiming through him from evicting or otherwise interfering with the Applicant’s possession of title No. L.R. No. Mutira/Kathare/842 until the Appeal is determined.”
2. I note that the Application is unopposed as no response has been filed by the Respondent though served. From the Supporting Affidavit the registered owners of the suit land are the 2nd and 3rd Appellants/Applicants but on 28. 1.2002, the PM’s Court in Kerugoya PMCC No. 90 of 2001 Ordered that the land be transferred to the Respondent. The Applicants then filed the Appeal.
3. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it would be proper to maintain the status of the parties until the Appeal is heard. The Appellants are in possession and on a balance of convenience, their eviction would be prejudicial to them. The Respondent has said nothing and I cannot assume that any prejudice would be caused to him.
4. In the circumstances, I shall grant Orders in terms of prayer 1 of the Application dated 19. 1.2004. As the Respondent has not appeared, I shall make no Orders as to costs .
Orders accordingly.
Read in open Court this 26th day of January 2005.
I. LENAOLA
JUDGE