[2023] KEELC 17767 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 17767 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs' application for a status quo order was meritorious and justified under Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011, and relevant case law. Given that the defendant did not oppose the application, and to preserve the integrity of the suit land pending the hearing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 17767 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Andrew Otieno Ogwang; Plaintiff: Tom Ochola Odhiambo; Plaintiff: Grace Akinyi Okinda; Plaintiff: Lucy Atieno Ochieng; Defendant: Tom Odak
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 28 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application for Status Quo Order Pending Hearing and Determination of Suit
Outcome
Status quo order granted; parties restrained from dealing with the suit land pending determination of the suit.
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Status Quo Orders, Interlocutory Injunctions, Estate Administration, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Status Quo Orders Interlocutory Injunctions Estate Administration Land Disputes

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Otieno Ogwang

Plaintiff

Tom Ochola Odhiambo

Plaintiff

Grace Akinyi Okinda

Plaintiff

Lucy Atieno Ochieng

Plaintiff

Tom Odak

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application for Status Quo Order Pending Hearing and Determination of Suit

  1. 1 Whether a status quo order should be issued to preserve the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
  2. 2 Whether the parties should be restrained from dealing with the suit land, including selling, charging, subdividing, or transferring it, during the pendency of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs' application for a status quo order was meritorious and justified under Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011, and relevant case law. Given that the defendant did not oppose the application, and to preserve the integrity of the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the main suit, the court ordered that the status quo be maintained. Specifically, the parties are restrained from selling, charging, subdividing, or transferring the suit parcels Central Kasipul/Kamuma/5844, 5845, 5846, and 5847 until the suit is resolved.

Court Disposition

Status quo order granted; parties restrained from dealing with the suit land pending determination of the suit.

Orders

  • Status quo to be maintained over land parcels Central Kasipul/Kamuma/5844, 5845, 5846, and 5847 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  • Parties are restrained from selling, charging, subdividing, or transferring the suit land during the pendency of the suit.