[2023] KEELC 21312 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 21312 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, as the construction was being carried out on land designated as a market without evidence of public participation or compliance with the physical plan. The absence of any response from the respondents meant the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 21312 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Nyakweba Oguku; Applicant: Joseph Mauti Kenyanya; Applicant: Elijah Machoni Mochama; Respondent: Speaker of the County Assembly Kisii County; Respondent: Hon. Paul Okombo Ayiemba, Member of County Assembly Boikanga Ward, Kisii County; Respondent: County Assembly of Kisii County; Respondent: Kisii County Government
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Petition E002 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Application for temporary injunction allowed.
Judges
M Sila
Legal Topics
Public Participation, Physical Planning, Injunctive Relief, Use of Public Land
Source Language
en
Land and Property Administrative Law Public Participation Physical Planning Injunctive Relief Use of Public Land

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Nyakweba Oguku

Applicant

Joseph Mauti Kenyanya

Applicant

Elijah Machoni Mochama

Applicant

Speaker of the County Assembly Kisii County

Respondent

Hon. Paul Okombo Ayiemba, Member of County Assembly Boikanga Ward, Kisii County

Respondent

County Assembly of Kisii County

Respondent

Kisii County Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the construction of Boikanga Ward offices on land designated as a market is lawful.
  2. 2 Whether there was adequate public participation prior to the commencement of construction.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining further construction pending determination of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, as the construction was being carried out on land designated as a market without evidence of public participation or compliance with the physical plan. The absence of any response from the respondents meant the applicants' averments were unchallenged. The court held that allowing the construction to proceed could result in irreparable harm to the public by depriving them of land set aside for a market. The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, as completion of the offices would frustrate the intended use of the land as a market. Accordingly, the court granted the orders...

Court Disposition

Application for temporary injunction allowed.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to immediately halt the ongoing construction of the designated MCA’s office of Boikanga Ward until this suit is fully heard and determined.
  • The costs of this application will be costs in the cause.