[2025] KEELC 467 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the suit property, as the defendant had entered and erected a structure without authority. However, the court declined to grant an order of inhibition because...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 467 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dancan Ochieng Oganyo; Defendant: Peter Okello Ouma
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E036 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application (ruling on Notice of Motion for Injunction)
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction granted in part; order of inhibition and police involvement declined.
- Judges
- SO Okong'o
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Trespass to Land, Status Quo Orders, Estate Administration
- 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
Dancan Ochieng Oganyo
Plaintiff
Peter Okello Ouma
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application (ruling on Notice of Motion for Injunction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit property pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether an order of inhibition should be issued against the suit property.
- 3 Whether the police should be involved in enforcing the court's orders at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the suit property, as the defendant had entered and erected a structure without authority. However, the court declined to grant an order of inhibition because there was no evidence that the property was registered, making such an order inapplicable. The court also found no justification for involving the police at this stage, noting that the plaintiff could seek committal for contempt if the defendant disobeyed the court's orders. The appropriate remedy was to restore and maintain the status quo that existed before the defendant's entry...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction granted in part; order of inhibition and police involvement declined.
Orders
- A temporary injunction is issued restraining the defendant by himself or through his agents, servants, employees or anyone claiming through him from trespassing, fencing, constructing on or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet possession and enjoyment of all that parcel of land known as Nyando/Wawidhi...
- The costs of the application to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Oganyo (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Onyango Olwalo) v Ouma (Environment & Land Case E036 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 467 (KLR) (10 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 467 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Environment & Land Case E036 of 2024
SO Okong'o, J
February 10, 2025
Between
Dancan Ochieng Oganyo
Plaintiff
Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Onyango Olwalo
and
Peter Okello Ouma
Defendant
Ruling
1What is before me is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion application dated 29th January 2025 brought under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 68 of the Land Registration Act, 2012. In the application, the Plaintiff has sought; a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from trespassing on, fencing, constructing on or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff’s quiet possession and enjoyment of all that parcel of land known as Nyando/Wawidhi “A” 1/1346 pending the hearing and determination of the suit, an order of inhibition inhibiting any dealings, alienation, or subdivision of Nyando/Wawidhi “A” 1/1346 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) pending the hearing and determination of the suit, and an order compelling the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Ahero Police Station to ensure compliance with the orders of the court once issued.
2The application which is supported by the affidavit of the Plaintiff sworn on 29th January 2025 is brought on the ground that the Plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of Joseph Onyango Olwalo, deceased (deceased) who is the owner of the suit property. The Plaintiff has averred that the deceased acquired the suit property from one, Charles Miruka Owidi through an agreement of sale dated 4th January 1984.
3The Plaintiff has averred that the estate of the deceased has enjoyed quiet possession of the suit property since the deceased purchased the same in 1984. The Plaintiff has averred that the Defendant without the authority or consent of the estate of the deceased entered the suit property and put up a structure thereon.
4The Plaintiff has averred that the said acts of the Defendant are illegal and amount to trespass. The Plaintiff has averred that unless restrained by the court, the Defendant will continue with the acts of trespass complained of.
5The application was served upon the defendant who did not respond to it. When the application came up for hearing on 6th February 2025, the Defendant appeared in court and told the court that he had already moved out of the suit property and had no objection to the orders sought being granted. The plaintiff’s application is in the circumstances unopposed. That notwithstanding, I am not inclined to grant all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff. I am of the view that on the facts and the material before me at this stage, what will serve the interest of justice is to restore and maintain the status quo that was prevailing before the Defendant entered the suit property, pending the hearing and determination of the suit. I find no basis for the order of inhibition sought by the Plaintiff. It is not clear to the court whether the suit property has been registered since neither a copy of the tile nor a certificate of search has been produced. If the property has not been registered, it would not be possible to register an inhibition against its title since the register will not be in existence.
6It is also not necessary to involve the Police in the dispute at this stage. The Plaintiff is at liberty to move the court to commit the Defendant to prison if he disobeys the orders of the court.
7For the foregoing reasons, I hereby make the following orders in the Plaintiff’s application;1. A temporary Injunction is issued restraining the Defendant by himself or through his agents, servants, employees or anyone claiming through him from trespassing, fencing, constructing on or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff’s quiet possession and enjoyment of all that parcel of land known as Nyando/Wawidhi “A” 1/1346 situated in South East Kano, Kisumu County pending the hearing and determination of the suit.2. The costs of the application to be in the cause.
DELIVERED AND DATED AT KISUMU ON THIS 10THDAY OF FEBRUARY 2025S. OKONG’OJUDGERuling delivered virtually through Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing Platform in the presence of:Ms. Shelmith for the PlaintiffThe Defendant in personMs. J.Omondi-Court Assistant