[2014] KEHC 3899 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 3899 (KLR)

The court found that since the application for interim injunctive orders was not opposed by the defendants and the plaintiff clarified that it did not affect the 9th defendant, there was no reason to deny the relief sought. The court exercised its discretion to grant prayers 3 and 4 of the application, thereby...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 3899 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ngome Natala; Defendant: Buleti Ngaira; Defendant: Rachel Ngaira; Defendant: Shiro Ngaira; Defendant: Gladys Machuma Musotsi; Defendant: Mulupi Buleti; Defendant: Philip Buleti; Defendant: Charles Buleti; Defendant: Ruth Injete; Defendant: Hon. Attorney General for Registrar of Lands Kakamega; Defendant: Reuben Chibole; Interested Party: West Kenya Sugar Co. Ltd.
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 10 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
application for interim injunction allowed; prayers 3 and 4 granted; costs in the cause
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Land Disputes, Maintenance of Status Quo
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interim Injunctions Land Disputes Maintenance of Status Quo

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ngome Natala

Plaintiff

Buleti Ngaira

Defendant

Rachel Ngaira

Defendant

Shiro Ngaira

Defendant

Gladys Machuma Musotsi

Defendant

Mulupi Buleti

Defendant

Philip Buleti

Defendant

Charles Buleti

Defendant

Ruth Injete

Defendant

Hon. Attorney General for Registrar of Lands Kakamega

Defendant

Reuben Chibole

Defendant

West Kenya Sugar Co. Ltd.

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim injunctive orders pending the hearing of the main suit.
  2. 2 Whether the application affects the 9th defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that since the application for interim injunctive orders was not opposed by the defendants and the plaintiff clarified that it did not affect the 9th defendant, there was no reason to deny the relief sought. The court exercised its discretion to grant prayers 3 and 4 of the application, thereby maintaining the interim orders pending the hearing of the main suit. Costs were reserved to be in the cause as the substantive dispute remains unresolved.

Court Disposition

application for interim injunction allowed; prayers 3 and 4 granted; costs in the cause

Orders

  • Prayers 3 and 4 of the Notice of Motion dated 8th August 2013 are granted.
  • Interim injunctive orders to remain in force pending hearing of the main suit.