[2017] KEELC 1106 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial, as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicant also did not show that damages would be inadequate as a remedy should the injunction be denied. Applying the third principle, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1106 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mwasi Musyoka; Respondent: Mwenga Munuve
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 52 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Trespass, Clan Land Allocation
- 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
Mwasi Musyoka
Applicant
Mwenga Munuve
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of an injunction.
- 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the applicant if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting or refusing the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial, as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicant also did not show that damages would be inadequate as a remedy should the injunction be denied. Applying the third principle, the court held that the balance of convenience did not favour the applicant. Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed, as the applicant did not meet the established legal threshold for such equitable relief.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 17th July 2017 is dismissed.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT GARISSA
ELC NO. 52 OF 2017
MWASI MUSYOKA……………..........…………..PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
MWENGA MUNUVE……………………….DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The application before me is the Notice of Motion brought under Certificate of Urgency dated 17th July, 2017. The applicant is seeking the following orders:
(a) (spent)
(b) THAT a temporary order of injunction be issued restraining the defendant whether by himself, his agents, employees, family members or who else from trespassing or fencing, sub-dividing the plaintiff’s suit lands and claiming ownership of the suit lands situated at different places i.e Kyethani farm, Kyunyu farm, Hivanguu village and Kwamulungu village respectively all at Nzanzeni location, Tseikuru District in Kitui County within the Republic of Kenya until the hearing and determination of this application.
(c) THAT a permanent order of injunction be issued restraining the defendant whether by himself , his agents, employees, family members or who else from trespassing or fencing, sub-dividing the suit land and claiming ownership of the suit lands and/or in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s un-surveyed lands situated at different places ie Kyethani farm, Kyungu farm, Hiva Nguu village, and Kwamulungu village respectively all at Nzanzeni location, Tseikuru District in Kitui County within the Republic of Kenya until the hearing and determination of this suit.
(d) Cost of the application be provided for.
The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant sworn on 17th July 2017 and grounds shown on the face of the said application. In the said affidavit, the applicant avers that he inherited the un-surveyed parcels of land at Kyethani and Kyunyu farm from his late father one Musyoka Munuve who passed on in the year 1993. He stated that he bought the third parcel of land situated at Kwamulungu village where he built a permanent home in the year 1994 or thereabout from the defendant/respondent at a consideration of Ksh.11,000/=.
The respondent on his part filed a replying affidavit in which he denied the applicants averments in the supporting affidavit. The respondent stated that he is the owner of three parcels of un-surveyed land situated at Kyethani farm, Kyungu farm, and Kwamulungu village in Mwangeni sub-location and that the applicant has trespassed into the three parcels of land without his consent. The respondent further stated that the Anzauni clan sub-divided the un-surveyed pieces of land to them and that the plaintiff/applicant sold his portions to known and unknown persons.
I have considered the averments in the affidavit evidence by the applicant and the respondent. I have also perused the application and the pleadings herein. The applicant is seeking an injunction order under Order 40 Rule 1 (a) and (b) and Section 3 and 3a CPA. It is now well settled that before granting an equitable relief of injunction the court must satisfy itself that the applicant has established the three principles as set out in the celebrated case of Grella –vs- Cassman Brown Limited (1973).
The three principles are as follows:
1. Prima farcie case with high chances of success at the hearing.
2. Damages could not be an adequate remedy.
3. Where the court is in doubt, it shall decide the matter on a balance of convenience.
Applying the three principles, I am not persuaded that the applicant has demonstrated that he has high chances of success at the main hearing. He has not also shown that damages would not be an adequate remedy should the orders being sought are denied. Applying the last principle, I find that the application should be disallowed which I hereby do. In the upshot, the application dated 17th July 2017 is hereby dismissed with costs to be in the cause.
Read and Signed in the open court this 2nd day of November 2017.
E.C Cherono(Mr.)
ELC Judge
In the presence of:
1. Ijabo – clerk
2. Applicant in person
3. Respondent in person