[2000] KEHC 358 (KLR)

[2000] KEHC 358 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had not established a case warranting the grant of an injunction. The access path in question had been officially rerouted in 1990, and the plaintiffs had been using the new path for over ten years. The previous path was no longer in use, and the rerouting was reflected in the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] KEHC 358 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ngugi Kinyanjui Kiuru; Plaintiff: Another (not named); Defendant: Ng’ang’a Kiuru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 1540 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Access Rights, Injunctions, Land Boundaries
Source Language
en
Land and Property Access Rights Injunctions Land Boundaries

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ngugi Kinyanjui Kiuru

Plaintiff

Another (not named)

Plaintiff

Ng’ang’a Kiuru

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their access path across the defendant's land.
  2. 2 Whether the rerouting of the access path in 1990 extinguished the plaintiffs' right to use the original path.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had not established a case warranting the grant of an injunction. The access path in question had been officially rerouted in 1990, and the plaintiffs had been using the new path for over ten years. The previous path was no longer in use, and the rerouting was reflected in the official survey map. As such, the order sought by the plaintiffs had been overtaken by events, and there was no basis for restraining the defendant from interfering with the original path. The application for injunction was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for injunction is dismissed with costs to the defendant.