[2011] KEHC 2380 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated ownership of the suit properties through documentary evidence and that the defendants had, without lawful justification, entered the properties, caused damage, and interfered with the plaintiffs' rights. The court held that these actions constituted prima facie...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2380 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Oasis Properties Ltd; Plaintiff: Wandemi Developers Ltd; Plaintiff: Joseph Ng'ang'a Njuguna; Plaintiff: James Njuguna Mburu; Plaintiff: John Githua Njuguna; Plaintiff: Edward Ndung'u Mereke; Plaintiff: Loise Wangui Mereke; Plaintiff: John Njenga Njuguna; Defendant: Daniel Otieno Miganga; Defendant: David J. Kollal; Defendant: Gilbert Thuo Macharia; Defendant: Roysa Community Self Help Group
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 526 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Trespass to Land, Interlocutory Injunctions, Quiet Enjoyment, Malicious Damage, Ownership 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
Oasis Properties Ltd
Plaintiff
Wandemi Developers Ltd
Plaintiff
Joseph Ng'ang'a Njuguna
Plaintiff
James Njuguna Mburu
Plaintiff
John Githua Njuguna
Plaintiff
Edward Ndung'u Mereke
Plaintiff
Loise Wangui Mereke
Plaintiff
John Njenga Njuguna
Plaintiff
Daniel Otieno Miganga
Defendant
David J. Kollal
Defendant
Gilbert Thuo Macharia
Defendant
Roysa Community Self Help Group
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for grant of an interlocutory injunction against the defendants.
- 2 Whether the defendants' actions amount to trespass, malicious damage, and interference with the plaintiffs' right to property.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to protection of their property rights pending hearing and determination of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated ownership of the suit properties through documentary evidence and that the defendants had, without lawful justification, entered the properties, caused damage, and interfered with the plaintiffs' rights. The court held that these actions constituted prima facie acts of trespass, malicious damage, and interference with the right to private property and quiet enjoyment. Applying the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and were entitled to injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from further acts pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The application is allowed in terms of prayers 3, 4, and 6 of the motion.
- An interlocutory injunction is issued restraining the defendants from trespassing, damaging, or interfering with the plaintiffs' properties pending hearing and determination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURT
ELC NO. 526 OF 2010
OASIS PROPERTIES LTD …………………...……………..1ST PLAINTIFF
WANDEMI DEVELOPERS LTD ………………...………….2ND PLAINTIFF
JOSEPH NG’ANG’A NJUGUNA ………….……….………..3RD PLAINTIFF
JAMES NJUGUNA MBURU …………………………..……4TH PLAINTIFF
JOHN GITHUA NJUGUNA …………………………...…..…5TH PLAINTIFF
EDWARD NDUNG’U MEREKA …………………........….…6TH PLAINTIFF
LOISE WANGUI MEREKA .............................................…...7TH PLAINTIFF
JOHN NJENGA NJUGUNA ………………………….…….8TH PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
DANIEL OTIENO MIGANGA ………………....…………..1ST DEFENDANT
DAVID J. KOLLAL …………………………...……..……2ND DEFENDANT
GILBERT THUO MACHARIA …………………...………..3RD DEFENDANT
ROYSA COMMUNITY SELF HELP GROUP..........………4TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This application was served but did not elicit any response. The 1st Plaintiff owns L.R. Nos 12803/20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44 and 45; the 2nd Plaintiff owns L.R. No. 27981/1 formerly L.R. No. 12083 (2-13) and L.R. Nos 12083/14, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 40 and 41; the 4th and 5th Plaintiffs own L.R. No. 12803/31; the 5th and 6th Plaintiffs own L.R. 12803/16; and the 8th Plaintiff owns L.R. No. 12803/15. They have produced respective documents of ownership. Their case is that on 2nd November 2010 the Defendants and their agents came onto these parcels by force and caused damage to property, chased away their employees and are purporting to survey the parcels and to create new parcels out of these existing ones. These are prima facie acts of trespass, malicious damage and interference with the Plaintiffs right to private property and quiet enjoyment of the same. These acts have to be restrained.
On basis of the principles enunciated in the case of Giella –Vs- Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358, I allow the application in terms of prayers 3, 4 and 6.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI
THIS 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2011
A.O. MUCHELULE
J U D G E