[2005] KEHC 1486 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success, as they showed evidence of allocation and possession of the suit premises and raised credible allegations of fraudulent transfer by the defendant. The defendant failed to produce evidence of title or rebut the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1486 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nganga Mucheru; Plaintiff: Njenga Mwokoke; Plaintiff: Njuguna Gitu (for and on behalf of the estate of Njeri Gitu, deceased); Plaintiff: Priscilla Wanjiku Kamau (for and on behalf of the estate of Kamu Kuria, deceased); Plaintiff: Kuria Gitu; Defendant: Michael Gichuhi Muiru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 527 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the applicants with costs
- Judges
- PJ Ransley
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Fraudulent Transfer of Land, Succession and Estates, Possession and Title 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
Nganga Mucheru
Plaintiff
Njenga Mwokoke
Plaintiff
Njuguna Gitu (for and on behalf of the estate of Njeri Gitu, deceased)
Plaintiff
Priscilla Wanjiku Kamau (for and on behalf of the estate of Kamu Kuria, deceased)
Plaintiff
Kuria Gitu
Plaintiff
Michael Gichuhi Muiru
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with Plot No.19 Gikuni Market pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the transfer of the suit premises to the defendant was fraudulent and without the applicants' consent.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success, as they showed evidence of allocation and possession of the suit premises and raised credible allegations of fraudulent transfer by the defendant. The defendant failed to produce evidence of title or rebut the applicants' claims of possession and development. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured the applicants, who were in possession and risked irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. Accordingly, the court granted the temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit premises pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the applicants with costs
Orders
- The defendant, whether by himself, his agents, employees or whomsoever, is restrained by an order for temporary injunction from entering into Plot No.19 Gikuni Market and demolishing the building erected thereon, trespassing, alienating, disposing or interfering in any way with the said plot and the building erected...
- Costs of the application are awarded to the applicants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL CASE 527 OF 2005
NGANGA MUCHERU …………………….…………..……………..1ST PLAINTIFF
NJENGA MWOKOKE …………………………………………….. 2ND PLAINTIFF
NJUGUNA GITU FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF NJERI GITU (DECEASED) ……….…….. 3RD PLAINTIFF
PRISCILLA WANJIKU KAMAU (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF KAMU KURIA (DECEASED) …….….…. 4TH PLAINTIFF
KURIA GITU ………………………………….……….…………… 5TH PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MICHAEL GICHUHI MUIRU ……………………………...……… DEFENDANT
RULING
The Applicants by the Chamber Summons of the 4. 5.2005 apply for an order that the Defendant/Respondent: -
(1) THAT the Defendant/Respondent herein whether by himself, his agents employees or whomsoever be restrained by an Order for temporary injunction from entering into Plot No.19 Gikuni Market and demolishing the building erected thereon, trespassing, alienating, disposing or interfering in anyway with the said plot NO.19 Gikuni Market and the building erected thereon until the hearing and determination of this suit.”
The applicants allege that they are the owners of the suit premises and that the Defendant has fraudulently and without the knowledge of the Applicants caused the suit premises to be transferred into his name through succession. In support of their contentious the Applicants have exhibited to the supporting affidavit of the first Applicant a document dated 25. 10. 72 and issued by the County Council of Kiambu in which Wagichachi Mwihuri, Kuria Gitu, Kamau Kuria, Njeri Gitu and Njenge Mwokoke were allocated plot No.19Gikuni Market (the suit premises). The first and third and fourth named allotees above are deceased and the third and fourth are represented by their personal representatives the third Applicant and fourth Applicant.
Wagichechi Mwihuri died on the 2. 8.1981 leaving a son Ndungu Wagichechi who is also deceased. Before his death, Letter of Administration were granted to him and Lucy Wanjiku Mwihuru and Wambui Mwokoke and annexed to the supporting affidavit to this application is a copy of the Confirmation of Grant which does not include the suit premises as part of the property. The Supporting Affidavit alleges that the property was the subject matter of Court proceedings in HCCC of 550 of 1992 brought by Ndungu Wagichechi, the representative of the late Wagichechi Mwihuri in which Shields J. made an order that Accounts of the business of the Defendants in that case be taken. The Defendants being the Plaintiff in this suit or their predecessors. The ruling was subsequently set aside. The contents of paragraph 11 of the Supporting Affidavit do not appear to bear out the contents of the order of Mr. Justice Shields. Be that as it may page 13 of the Supporting Affidavit states: -
“THAT despite the fact that the Decree of 20th May, 1993 was set aside on 20th January, 1994, NDUNGU WAGICHACHI willingly and knowingly proceeded to Kikuyu Town Council and using the already set aside Decree he fraudulently applied for the Plot No.19 Gikuni Market to be transferred into his name and that of his co- Administrator LUCY WANJIKU MWIHURI and the Town Council of Kikuyu approved the transfer on 25th October, 1994 Annexed hereto and marked NM8 is a copy of the Town Council of Kikuyu Minute No. WTPM/75/94 of its “Works, Town Planning and Markets Committee’ meeting held on 25th October, 1994 to that effect.”
The outcome is that the Applicant alleged that the transfer of the suit premises into the name of Ndungu Wagichechi was fraudulent and the he had no right to transfer the suit premises into the name of the Defendants.
The Defendant in his Replying Affidavit alleges he purchased the suit premises from the original owner and got a clear title. The Defendant does not, however, annex a copy of his alleged title to the suit premises. He does not, however, deny the allegation of the Applicants that they put permanent building in the suit premises comprising two butcheries, which are rented out to third parties.
From the evidence it appear that the Applicants have an interest in the suit premises. What the exact nature of their interest is and whether the Defendant got a good title to the suit.
Which can only be decided at a full hearing of the suit. In the meanwhile the Applicants being in possession of the suit premises have shown a prima facie case with a probability of success. In any event the balance of convenience falls in this favour. In the result I grant the order sought in the Chamber Summons of the 4. 5.2005 with costs to the Applicant.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 4th day of July 2005
P.J. RANSLEY
JUDGE