[2017] KEELC 311 (KLR)
The court found that neither party produced documentary evidence of ownership or demonstrated what injury would be suffered if the orders were not granted. Given the ancestral claims and lack of clear title, the court determined that the balance of convenience required maintaining the status quo as at the date of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 311 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mwasi Musyoka; Defendant: 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 for injunction declined; status quo to be maintained.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Ancestral Land Rights, Status Quo Orders
- 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
Plaintiff
Mwenga Munuve
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit land pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated ownership or sufficient interest in the disputed parcels of land to warrant the orders sought.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that neither party produced documentary evidence of ownership or demonstrated what injury would be suffered if the orders were not granted. Given the ancestral claims and lack of clear title, the court determined that the balance of convenience required maintaining the status quo as at the date of filing the suit. The court therefore declined to grant the injunction sought by the applicant but ordered both parties to maintain the status quo, with enforcement supervised by the OCS Tseikuru police station and the area chief, pending land adjudication.
Court Disposition
Application for injunction declined; status quo to be maintained.
Orders
- Parties to maintain the status quo as at 18th July, 2017.
- OCS Tseikuru police station and area chief to supervise enforcement of the order pending land adjudication.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
AT GARISSA
ELC CASE NO. 52 OF 2017
MWASI MUSYOKA…….……………….....……..………….…PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MWENGA MUNUVE…………….…………………….…….DEFENDANT
RULING
The application before me is the Notice of Motion dated 14th November, 2017 brought under certificate of urgency. The applicant has not cited the provisions of the law under which the application has been brought. However, the applicant has stated in his certificate of urgency that on 4/11/2017 the respondent entered into his unsurveyed piece of land situated at Kyethani farm and kyungu farm and started ploughing, destroying fence, grazing his livestock and cutting down trees without his consent. The same facts are repeated in his supporting affidavit sworn the same date.
The applicant further contends that on 7/11/2017 he reported to the OCS Tseikuru police station over threats by the respondent to harm him and his family. On 10/11/2017 he reported to his area chief who wrote a letter the same day which is annexed to the supporting affidavit and marked “KM2”. A letter from the OCS Tseikuru police station is also annexed to the said affidavit and marked KM1. In his replying affidavit sworn on 4th November, 2017, and filed on 5th December, 2017 the plaintiff/respondent opposes the application and contends that he is the rightful owner of all those pieces of land known as Kyethani and Kyunyu farm having inherited them from his late gather Musyoka Munuve.
The respondent further avers that he has been using the two farms and that he has done developments such as planting/ploughing and planting trees. The plaintiff/respondent further contends that he has been utilizing the two parcels of land until the year 2013 when the defendant/applicant called for Anzauni clan meeting where he was claiming to own the two parcels of land. None of the two parties to this dispute cited any authorities or filed and submissions as both of them act in their personal capacity.
I have considered the affidavit evidence by both parties to the dispute herein. The subject matter of this application are two un-surveyed parcels of land situated at Kyethani farm and Kyunyu farm. Though the applicant has not cited the provisions of the law for which he is seeking to orders, my discernment is that the applicant is seeking injunction order pursuant to order 40 CPR. The parcels of land in dispute are un-surveyed parcels of land which the parties claim to have ancestral interest. Since the applicant has not produced any documents of ownership and has not shown what injury he stands to suffer if the orders are not granted.
I shall decide this case on a balance of convenience. In my view, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of orderings the parties to maintain the status quo as at the filing of this suit on 18th July, 2017. The OCS Tseikuru police station and the area chief to supervise the enforcement of this order pending the land adjudication of the affected area.
The costs of the operation shall be costs in the cause.
Read and delivered in the Open Court this 13th December, 2017.
E. C Cherono (Mr.)
ELC Judge
In the presence of:
1. Plaintiff (Applicant)
2. Defendant (Respondent)
3. Ijabo –Court Clerk