[2009] KEHC 2732 (KLR)
The court determined that the core dispute concerns occupation and beneficial entitlement to the suit land, which is a matter within the statutory jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act. The court exercised its discretion to refer the dispute to the Makueni...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2732 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Muli Muindi; Plaintiff: Kasika Muli Muindi; Defendant: Roy Ngomo Muli
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 102 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- Application referred to Land Disputes Tribunal; suit to be determined per Tribunal award.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Jurisdiction of Land Tribunals, Trespass, Family Land Transfers
- 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
Muli Muindi
Plaintiff
Kasika Muli Muindi
Plaintiff
Roy Ngomo Muli
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant should be temporarily restrained from trespassing or dealing with Land parcel No. Makindu/Kalii/1124 pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the dispute over occupation and beneficial entitlement to the suit land should be determined by the Land Disputes Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that the core dispute concerns occupation and beneficial entitlement to the suit land, which is a matter within the statutory jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal under section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act. The court exercised its discretion to refer the dispute to the Makueni District Land Disputes Tribunal for arbitration, holding that the Tribunal is the proper forum to resolve the factual and legal issues regarding occupation and alleged trespass. The court ordered that the application for injunction and the suit itself be determined in accordance with the Tribunal's award, subject to the court's residual powers to make further orders as...
Court Disposition
Application referred to Land Disputes Tribunal; suit to be determined per Tribunal award.
Orders
- The dispute is referred to the Makueni District Land Disputes Tribunal for arbitration.
- The Tribunal's decision to be forwarded to this court for further action.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
CIVIL CASE 102 OF 2004
MULI MUINDI …….…………………..……………….. 1ST PLAINTIFF
KASIKA MULI MUINDI ……………………………… 2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ROY NGOMO MULI ……………………………………… DEFENDANT
RULING
1. On 13/9/2004, the Plaintiffs herein, Muli Muindi and Kasika Muli Muindi filed their Plaint and the principal prayer is one of a “permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from moving into and occupying Land parcel No. Makindu/Kalii/1124”. Costs are also sought.
2. On 13/11/2007, the Plaintiffs filed a Chamber Summons under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from trespassing into or in any manner dealing with the suit land until the suit is heard and determined.
3It is deponed in the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 13/11/2007 by the 1st Applicant that the 2nd Applicant and the Respondent are both children of the 1st Applicant and that he transferred the suit land to the 2nd Applicant and that by a “declaration” dated 15/8/1993, he declared that he had bequeathed the land to his daughter, the 2nd Applicant and that any member of his family who refuses to abide by that declaration would stand “cursed” and would bear the consequences of the “curse”. That the Respondent by an agreement before the Chief Mbitini Location accepted to move and cultivate the 1st Applicant’s land at Kyumile area and he did so. The Respondent’s response in his Replying Affidavit sworn on 7/11/2008 is that he was unhappy with his father’s decision to transfer the suit land to his sister, the 2nd Applicant and he objected to any such attempt but in October 2005, the transfer was effected and a title deed issued to the 2nd Applicant. He then filed a case before the Makueni District Land Disputes Tribunal (being its case No. 84/2005 but the Tribunal decided to await the outcome of the present suit.
4The Respondent further deponed that he lives on the suit land and has done so since 1998 and he is entitled to it beneficially.
5I have taken into account submissions made and to my mind, this matter should be fully and finally resolved by the Makueni District Land Tribunal by a revival of its Case No. 84/2005. I say this with respect because in his Statement of Defence dated 30/9/2004, the Defendant pleads that he occupies the suit land equally with his sister. Ownership is not in dispute before me presently. What is in dispute is whether he is in fact a trespasser on land previously belonging to his father and later transferred to his sister. That is a matter properly within the purview of section 3 (1) of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act.
6 I will therefore exercise discretion and order that the dispute herein be arbitrated by the Makueni Disputes Land Tribunal and its decision forwarded to this court for further action.
7. The Application and the suit shall be determined in terms of the Tribunal’s Award subject to the powers of this court to make such other orders as it may think fit.
8. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 19thday of May2009.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE
In presence of: Mr Makau h/b for Mr Sila for Respondents
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE