[2019] KEELC 290 (KLR)
The court found that both parties were agreeable to maintaining the status quo and proceeding with the hearing of the main suit. There was no evidence of ongoing new developments or acts of trespass beyond what had occurred prior to 2016. The court exercised its discretion to preserve the subject matter of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 290 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ndereba Naichu; Respondent: Kanga Mwirabua; Respondent: Mbiuki Mwirabua; Respondent: Ciambere Kangangi; Respondent: John Mutegi Kangangi; Respondent: Kaburu Kangangi; Respondent: Kaari Kangangi; Respondent: Ciamui Kangangi; Respondent: Ciambaka Kangangi; Respondent: Nyaga Mpungu; Respondent: Kagendo Ciambaka; Respondent: Kithinji Kaburu; Respondent: Muthoni Mutegi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 07 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for temporary injunction deemed heard and determined; status quo to be maintained; no order as to costs; main suit to proceed to hearing.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Status Quo Orders, Land Disputes, Trespass, Interlocutory Applications
- 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
Ndereba Naichu
Applicant
Kanga Mwirabua
Respondent
Mbiuki Mwirabua
Respondent
Ciambere Kangangi
Respondent
John Mutegi Kangangi
Respondent
Kaburu Kangangi
Respondent
Kaari Kangangi
Respondent
Ciamui Kangangi
Respondent
Ciambaka Kangangi
Respondent
Nyaga Mpungu
Respondent
Kagendo Ciambaka
Respondent
Kithinji Kaburu
Respondent
Muthoni Mutegi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from carrying out work or trespassing on L.R. Karingani/Mariani/395 pending determination of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the status quo should be maintained pending hearing and determination of the main suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both parties were agreeable to maintaining the status quo and proceeding with the hearing of the main suit. There was no evidence of ongoing new developments or acts of trespass beyond what had occurred prior to 2016. The court exercised its discretion to preserve the subject matter of the dispute by ordering that the status quo be maintained, thereby rendering the application for injunctive relief spent. The application was deemed heard and determined, with no order as to costs, and the main suit was directed to proceed to hearing.
Court Disposition
Application for temporary injunction deemed heard and determined; status quo to be maintained; no order as to costs; main suit to proceed to hearing.
Orders
- This application is deemed heard and determined with no order as to costs.
- Status quo be maintained.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 07 OF 2019
NDEREBA NAICHU..............................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
KANGA MWIRABUA...............................................1ST RESPONDENT
MBIUKI MWIRABUA.............................................2ND RESPONDENT
CIAMBERE KANGANGI.......................................3RD RESPONDENT
JOHN MUTEGI KANGANGI................................4TH RESPONDENT
KABURU KANGANGI...........................................5TH RESPONDENT
KAARI KANGANGI...............................................6TH RESPONDENT
CIAMUI KANGANGI..............................................7TH RESPONDENT
CIAMBAKA KANGANGI.......................................8THRESPONDENT
NYAGA MPUNGU...................................................9TH RESPONDENT
KAGENDO CIAMBAKA......................................10TH RESPONDENT
KITHINJI KABURU.............................................11TH RESPONDENT
MUTHONI MUTEGI...........................................12TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. When this matter came up for hearing of the main suit, Mr. Riungu for the respondents, told the court that he had been served in court, with an application seeking injunctive orders dated 20th November, 2019. He told the court that the application contained issues which had been raised earlier. He was unequivocal that his clients had not put up any new developments since 2016. He said that the photos annexed were for a building whose construction stalled in 2016. He asked the court to send its executive officer to ascertain the same.
2. Mr. Kaumbi, the applicant’s advocate, told the court that he was unable to tell who between his client and the respondents was/were telling the truth. He said that if status quo was maintained he was ready to proceed with the hearing of the main suit.
3. Mr. Riungu told the court that he would tell his clients to maintain status quo.
4. The subject application which is dated 20th November, 2019 states as follows:
1. That this application be certified as urgent and heard ex-parte in the first instance.
2. That this honourable court be pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants/respondents by themselves, employees, servants, agents and/or workmen from proceeding with any work of whatever kind on, or any other acts of trespass upon L.R. Karingani/Mariani/395 for purposes of preserving the status quo pending hearing and determination of this application.
3. That this honourable court be pleased to grant an order compelling the defendants/respondents by themselves or through their employees, servants, agents and/or workmen to withdraw their construction materials from L.R. Karingani/Mariani/395 for purpose of preserving status quo pending hearing and determination of E.L.C Case No. 19 of 2019 (OS)
4. That the honourable court be pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents by themselves, their officials, servants, agents and/or workmen from carrying out work of whatever kind on L.R. Karingani/Mariani/395 pending hearing and determination of E.L.C. Case No. 19 of 2019 (OS) in which the applicant has been sued by the respondents.
5. That the costs of this application be provided for.
5. The following orders are issued:-
a) This application is deemed heard and determined with no order as to costs.
b) Status quo be maintained.
c) Hearing of the main suit to proceed today.
Delivered in open Court at Chuka this 26th day of November, 2019 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Riungu for the Plaintiff
Kaumbi for the defendants
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE