[2023] KEELC 54 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient material to justify the grant of inhibition orders, particularly due to the absence of an official search to establish the current status of the suit land and the unexplained delay between the distribution of the estate and the filing of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 54 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Margaret Gakii Muriithi; Applicant: John Kimathi Muriuki; Applicant: Silas Karimba & Honesty Kawira (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Consolata Kanyua Kimathi); Respondent: Cerina Kanugu; Respondent: Gervasio Kithinji Thuranira
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E016 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order Pending Hearing of Originating Summons
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- CK Nzili
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Inhibition Orders, Interlocutory Injunctions, Probate and Administration, 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
Margaret Gakii Muriithi
Applicant
John Kimathi Muriuki
Applicant
Silas Karimba & Honesty Kawira (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Consolata Kanyua Kimathi)
Applicant
Cerina Kanugu
Respondent
Gervasio Kithinji Thuranira
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order Pending Hearing of Originating Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established sufficient grounds for the grant of inhibition orders over LR No Nkuene Ng’onyi/213 pending the determination of the originating summons.
- 2 Whether the absence of an official search and explanation for delay justifies refusal of the interlocutory orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient material to justify the grant of inhibition orders, particularly due to the absence of an official search to establish the current status of the suit land and the unexplained delay between the distribution of the estate and the filing of the application. The court held that, in the absence of such material and explanation, it would not be appropriate to grant drastic orders of a prohibitory nature at this stage. Consequently, the application for inhibition was dismissed for lack of merit, but the originating summons was directed to be set down for hearing on a priority basis.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for inhibition orders is dismissed for lack of merit.
- The originating summons to be set down for hearing on a priority basis.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Muriithi & 2 others v Kanugu & another (Legal Representatives of the Estate of M’munyua M’muguongo alias Ikunywa Muguongo Deceased) (Environment & Land Case E016 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 54 (KLR) (18 January 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 54 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Meru
Environment & Land Case E016 of 2022
CK Nzili, J
January 18, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCEL NO. LR. NKUENE/NGONYI/273 AND IN THE MATTER OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND REGISTRATION ACT NO. 3 OF 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION ACTION ACT NO. 4 OF 2015
Between
Margaret Gakii Muriithi
1st Applicant
John Kimathi Muriuki
2nd Applicant
Silas Karimba & Honesty Kawira (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Consolata Kanyua Kimathi )
3rd Applicant
and
Cerina Kanugu
1st Respondent
Gervasio Kithinji Thuranira
2nd Respondent
Legal Representatives of the Estate of M’munyua M’muguongo alias Ikunywa Muguongo Deceased
Ruling
1. The applicants seek for inhibition orders against the LR No Nkuene Ng’onyi/213 hereinafter the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the originating summons dated October 24, 2022, in which they seek for declaration of ownership of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession.
2. The reasons as contained in the supporting affidavit sworn on October 24, 2022 by Margaret Gakii Murithi are that though in occupation of 1½ acres of the suitland since 2004, a confirmation of grant from the Meru HC Succession Case No 65 of 1993 for the estate of the deceased is due for implementation to the detriment of the applicants.
3. The court has looked at the ruling aforementioned. It is dated June 7, 2022. The originating summons and this application were filed on October 24, 2022 and October 25, 2022 respectively. There is no official search attached to the affidavit for this court to establish the current status of the suit land. A lot may have happened in the four months since the distribution of the estate was done by the probate court. The cause for the delay has not been explained. Therefore, I find no good reason why the court should issue such drastic orders which are in the nature of prohibitory injunction at this juncture without any sufficient material. I find the application lacking merits. The same is dismissed. The originating summons to be set down for hearing on priority basis.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURTTHIS 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023In presence of:C/A: KananuGikundi for applicantRespondent in personHON. C.K. NZILIELC JUDGE