[1995] KEHC 60 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case as the defendant had not sufficiently identified or shown the alternative plots allocated to the applicants. The balance of convenience favored the applicants, as refusing the injunction would likely result in irreparable harm that could not be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1995] KEHC 60 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nyokabi Karanja & Others; Defendant: Kamuingi Housing Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1508 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunction granted with costs to the applicant.
- Judges
- AI Hayanga
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Eviction, Status Quo Orders, Allocation of Land, Prima Facie Case
- 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
Nyokabi Karanja & Others
Plaintiff
Kamuingi Housing Company Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from evicting them from plot No.36/V/01 in Mathare, Nairobi.
- 2 Whether the defendant has sufficiently identified and allocated alternative plots to the applicants.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors granting the injunction to preserve the status quo.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case as the defendant had not sufficiently identified or shown the alternative plots allocated to the applicants. The balance of convenience favored the applicants, as refusing the injunction would likely result in irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages. The court determined that it was fair to preserve the status quo by granting the interlocutory injunction, thereby restraining the defendant from evicting the applicants until the defendant could properly identify and allocate the alternative plots.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunction granted with costs to the applicant.
Orders
- The defendant, its agents or servants, are restrained from evicting the applicants from plot No.36/V/01 in Mathare, Nairobi, pending further orders of the court.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the applicants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
H.C.CIVIL CASE NO.1508 OF 1994
NYOKABI KARANJA & OTHERS ………….………….. PLAITNIFFS
VERSUS
KAMUINGI HOUSING COMPANY LIMITED ………. DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
By application dated 20/4/1995 the applicant pray for interlocutory injunction under Order 39 rule 2 and section 3A of Civil Procedure Rules and Civil Procedure Applicant respectively to restrain the defendant its agents or servants from evicting them from plot No.36/V/01 in Mathare, Nairobi. Nyokabi’s Karaya’s affidavit was missing so she gave oral evidence saying she is a member of Kamungi Housing Company and she stays in Mathare. She says she has been given a plot in Njiru although she stays in mathare. She says, however she has not been shown that plot. It is because of this, she does not want to be evicted from Mathare where she has her house. And this is what is refuted by James Ndegwa, Chairman of the Company in his un-dated affidavit filed on 17/5/1994. He says the land 36/V/01, which was acquired on behalf of the members, has not been sub-divided and title deed issued to the owners. That before subdivisions some members had built temporary structure there. These people have been allocated plots elsewhere. It is within the category of these people that the applicant belongs.
I see that the main issue linged on the omission by the company to point out to the applicants, which plots, they had been allocated. Before that, they would rather cling to those plots they are now occupying although respondent says those have been issued, no title was exhibited to show that. It would be fair to present the status quo not so much to have the case heard but to give the defendant time and opportunity to show the plot. I think the applicants have no the evidence before me, a prima facie case which probability of success; and I also think the balance of convenience is in granting the injunction to preserve status quo. If I refuse the injunction, the applicants would suffer an injury that compensation may not satisfy. These being the land, I therefore grant the prayers with costs to applicant.
Given by me this 26th day of October, 1995.
A. I . HAYANGA
JUDGE