[2024] KEELC 1297 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established a meritorious case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The respondents, having been duly served, failed to respond or contest the application. The court applied the principle that injunctive orders are intended to preserve property and maintain the status quo,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 1297 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Esther Aduol Okumu (Suing as the legal administrator of the Estate of Moses Okumu Yugi (Deceased)); Respondent: Jane Auma Abongo (Sued in her personal and representative capacities as the legal administrator of the Estate of Jairo Awino (Deceased)); Respondent: Silas Otieno Okumu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E004 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Temporary injunction granted.
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Temporary Injunctions, Limitation of Actions, Status Quo 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
Esther Aduol Okumu (Suing as the legal administrator of the Estate of Moses Okumu Yugi (Deceased))
Applicant
Jane Auma Abongo (Sued in her personal and representative capacities as the legal administrator of the Estate of Jairo Awino (Deceased))
Respondent
Silas Otieno Okumu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her possession of a defined portion of land pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the respondents' actions in beaconing and fencing off part of the applicant's homestead justify the grant of injunctive relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established a meritorious case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The respondents, having been duly served, failed to respond or contest the application. The court applied the principle that injunctive orders are intended to preserve property and maintain the status quo, especially where there is evidence of interference with possession. The applicant demonstrated that the 2nd respondent's actions in beaconing and fencing off part of her homestead disturbed her peace and denied her rights over the land. In the absence of any rebuttal from the respondents, the court was satisfied that the interests of justice required the issuance of a temporary...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Temporary injunction granted.
Orders
- A temporary injunction is issued restraining the respondents, their agents, servants or employees from charging, transferring, selling, evicting or denying the applicant and her family access to the portion measuring 0.06 hectares on L.R No. West Kasipul/Konuonga/501 and/or in any way interfering with the...
- The O.C.S Oyugis Police Station is directed to ensure enforcement of this order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Okumu (Suing as the legal administrator of the Estate of Moses Okumu Yugi (Deceased) v Abongo (Sued in her personal and representative capacities as the legal administrator of the Estate of Jairo Awino (Deceased) & another (Environment & Land Case E004 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 1297 (KLR) (6 March 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 1297 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Environment & Land Case E004 of 2024
GMA Ongondo, J
March 6, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT CAP 22 LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF ACQUISITION OF TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION F A DEFINED PORTION OF LAND PARCEL WEST KASIPUL/KONUONGA/501 BETWEEN
Between
Esther Aduol Okumu (Suing as the legal administrator of the Estate of Moses Okumu Yugi (Deceased)
Applicant
and
Jane Auma Abongo (Sued in her personal and representative capacities as the legal administrator of the Estate of Jairo Awino (Deceased)
1st Respondent
Silas Otieno Okumu
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. By a notice of Motion application dated 12th February 2024, the applicant herein through Onyango Otunga and Company Advocates, is seeking the following orders;a.Mootb.Mootc.That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an Order of temporary injunction against the Respondents restraining them, whether by themselves, their agents, servants or employees from charging, transferring, selling, evicting or denying the Applicant and her family access to the portion measuring 0. 06 Hectares on L.R No. West Kasipul/Konuonga/501 and/or in anyway interfering with the Applicant’s quite possession thereof pending hearing and determination of this suit.d.That the O.C.S Oyugis Police Station to ensure this order is enforced.e.The costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit of twenty-five paragraphs and grounds I to VI set out on the face of the application which include;a.That the 2nd Respondent has recently beaconed and fenced off part of the Applicant’s homestead, disturbing the Applicant’s peace and denying her, her rights over the land.b.That it is in the interest of justice that the Order sought is issued to restrain the 2nd Respondent’s actions and retain status of the land pending hearing and determination of the suit.
3. It is trite law that the court has a duty to ensure that the respondent is made aware of the existence of the matter before it and to have the respondent served with all the necessary papers. The respondent has the right to appear or decline to appear in the matter; see Ogada versus Mollin (2009) KLR 620.
4. The respondents were duly served with the application as disclosed in affidavits of service sworn on 22nd February 2024 and 29th February 2024 and as affirmed by Ms E.A Onyango learned counsel for the applicant. Be that as it may, there is no response to the application.
5. Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides for temporary injunctions and interlocuntory Orders. In Hutchings Biemer Ltd-vs-Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd& 2 others (2006) eKLR, the Court of Appeal remarked;“.......injunctive orders are meant to preserve property and maintain the status quo.............”
6. In the circumstances, the application is firm and meritorious. The applicant is deserving of the prayers in the application.
7. Wherefore, the application is hereby allowed in terms of the orders set out in paragraph 1 (c) and (d) hereinabove with costs to the applicant.
8. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT HOMA BAY THIS 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024. G. M A ONG’ONDOJUDGEPRESENT;a. Ms E. A Onyango learned counsel for the applicantb. T. Luanga, court assistant