[2024] KEELC 1462 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had established sufficient grounds for the grant of a temporary injunction. The applicants demonstrated that the respondent had encroached on the suit land, which they depend on for their livelihood, and that there was a risk of further harm if the status quo was not maintained....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 1462 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Pius Owino Odoro; Appellant: Jacob Oyugi Odoro; Appellant: Teresa Mboya Odoro; Appellant: Felix Ojwando Odoro; Respondent: Samwel Opiyo Akongo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application allowed in terms of maintenance of status quo; no eviction of applicants pending appeal.
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Land Encroachment, Interim Preservation Orders
- 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
Pius Owino Odoro
Appellant
Jacob Oyugi Odoro
Appellant
Teresa Mboya Odoro
Appellant
Felix Ojwando Odoro
Appellant
Samwel Opiyo Akongo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with the suit land pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the court should maintain the status quo over the suit land to preserve the subject matter of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had established sufficient grounds for the grant of a temporary injunction. The applicants demonstrated that the respondent had encroached on the suit land, which they depend on for their livelihood, and that there was a risk of further harm if the status quo was not maintained. The court recognized its statutory mandate to issue interim preservation orders under section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act and found that maintaining the status quo would serve the ends of justice pending the determination of the appeal. Accordingly, the court allowed the application to the extent that the applicants would not be evicted from the suit land and...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in terms of maintenance of status quo; no eviction of applicants pending appeal.
Orders
- Status quo to be maintained over Land Parcel No. Kabuoch/K-K Karita/570 pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
- No eviction of the applicants from the suit land pending the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
Odoro & 3 others v Akongo (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1462 (KLR) (18 March 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 1462 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2023
GMA Ongondo, J
March 18, 2024
Between
Pius Owino Odoro
1st Appellant
Jacob Oyugi Odoro
2nd Appellant
Teresa Mboya Odoro
3rd Appellant
Felix Ojwando Odoro
4th Appellant
and
Samwel Opiyo Akongo
Respondent
Ruling
1. By a Notice of Motion application dated 4th August 2023, the four applicants through G. S. Okoth and Company Advocates are seeking the following orders;a.Mootb.Mootc.The Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from entering into, cultivating, erecting any building or in any other way dealing with Land Parcel No. Kabuoch/K-K Karita/570. (The suit land herein) or any portion thereof adverse to the interest of the applicants thereon pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.d.The costs of this application be awarded to the appellants.
2. The gravamen of the application is the 1st applicant’s supporting affidavit to the application and the annexed documents marked as “POO-1 to P00 5” being a copy of the trial court’s decree and map, among others as well as grounds which include;a.By an order issued on the 29th March 2023 the original trial court reinstated the appellants on their rightful sections of the suit land which the appellants commence using by planting crops and erecting structures until sometime in July 2023 when the respondent and his family started encroaching into portions thereof and has continued encroaching further thereby destroying the appellants’ properties thereon and prevented them from carrying on with cultivating their portions.
3. The respondent represented by learned counsel, Ochieng Madoro Khairalla, opposed the application by way of his replying affidavit sworn on 16th November 2023 and urged the court to dismiss the same with costs. He deposed, inter alia, that this appeal is far-fetched, lopsided, limbless, hollow and belated in all aspects. That there be a status quo in regard to the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court in the instant matter.
4. Hearing of the application was by way of written submissions pursuant to directions of the court given on 3rd October 2022.
5. By the applicants’ submissions herein, their learned counsel implored the court to apply the conditions for grant of temporary injunction and allow the application accordingly. To buttress the submissions, reference was made to Order 42 Rule 6 (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and the case of Pius Kipchirchir Kogo-vs-Frank Kimeli Tenai (2018) KLR, among others.
6. The respondent’s submissions dated 18th January 2024, relate to the appeal. To a great extent, the respondent reiterates his averments in the replying affidavit in his submissions.
7. I have carefully considered the application, the replying affidavit and the rival submissions. Therefore, have the applicants made out their case to entitle them to the orders sought in the application?
8. Temporary injunction and temporary orders are provided for under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; see also Giella-vs-Cassman Brown & Company Limited (1973) EA 358 and Nguruman Ltd-vs-Jean Bonde Nielsen and other (2014) eKLR
9. The applicants asserted that the respondent encroached into the suit land in use by the applicants. That the latter depend on the same for their livelihood.
10. Clearly, the memorandum of appeal dated 14th July 2023 contains issues including jurisdiction. The issues call for their hearing on merits in the instant appeal.
11. This court has the mandate under section 13 (7) (a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015 (2011) to grant interim preservation orders over the suit land; see also Ogada-vs-Mollin (2009) KLR 620.
12. So, the applicants are entitled to order to preserve the suit land, in the interim, as noted in section 13 (7) (a) and Ogada case (both supra) pending the hearing and determination of the appeal; This is targeted at meeting the ends of justice in this appeal.
13. To this end, the finding of this court is that this application is substantially merited.
14. Accordingly, the instant application tis hereby allowed in terms of maintenance of status quo over the suit land as the decree (P002) is in favour of the respondent and the applicants are in use of the suit land but there be no eviction of the applicants from the same pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
15. Costs to the application to abide the outcome of this appeal.
16. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT HOMA BAY THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2024G.M. A ONG’ONDOJUDGEPresent;a. P. Odhiambo instructed by G.S Okoth learned counsel for the applicants.b. L K Obwanda instructed by Ochieng Madoro Khairalla learned counsel for the respondentc. The respondentd. T. Luanga, court assistant