[2024] KEELC 1469 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 1469 (KLR)

The court determined that, since both parties through their respective counsel agreed to compromise the application for a temporary injunction by consent, it was appropriate to adopt the terms proposed and affirmed by both sides. Guided by the constitutional imperative to promote alternative dispute resolution and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 1469 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Casmie Mbori Ogendi alias Casmiel Mbori Ogendi; Defendant: Fredrick Onyango Odhiambo (Sued on her Own Behalf and as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of Johnson Odhiambo Ogolo -Deceased)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E002 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
Application determined by consent; status quo maintained; plaintiff to remain in possession; no further dealings with the property pending suit determination; costs in the cause.
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Injunctive Relief, Limitation of Actions, Land Registration, Status Quo Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Injunctive Relief Limitation of Actions Land Registration Status Quo Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Casmie Mbori Ogendi alias Casmiel Mbori Ogendi

Plaintiff

Fredrick Onyango Odhiambo (Sued on her Own Behalf and as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of Johnson Odhiambo Ogolo -Deceased)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction

  1. 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. 2 Whether the status quo should be maintained regarding possession and occupation of the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the application can be determined by consent of the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that, since both parties through their respective counsel agreed to compromise the application for a temporary injunction by consent, it was appropriate to adopt the terms proposed and affirmed by both sides. Guided by the constitutional imperative to promote alternative dispute resolution and the statutory powers of the Environment and Land Court to grant interim orders, the court ordered that the plaintiff shall continue in possession and occupation of the suit property, and that there shall be no fresh development, sale, disposal, transfer, or charge of the property pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The application was thus determined by...

Court Disposition

Application determined by consent; status quo maintained; plaintiff to remain in possession; no further dealings with the property pending suit determination; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The notice of motion application dated 1st February 2024 is determined by consent of parties.
  • The plaintiff to continue in possession and occupation of the suit property and there shall be no fresh development, sale, disposal, transfer, or charge of the same pending the hearing and determination of the suit.