[2018] KEELC 2376 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims that the respondents were subdividing or selling the suit land. The affidavit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2376 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Oloisiriri Kardalei & 31 Others; Defendant: The District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officers and 2 Others
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 277 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MN Kullow
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Status Quo Orders, Prima Facie Case, Land Adjudication Disputes
- 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
Oloisiriri Kardalei & 31 Others
Plaintiff
The District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officers and 2 Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of an injunction.
- 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to orders for maintenance of status quo and restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims that the respondents were subdividing or selling the suit land. The affidavit evidence was based on information whose source was not disclosed, and there was no documentary or other credible evidence of the alleged sale or eviction. Consequently, the court held that the threshold for granting an injunction had not been met and dismissed the application on that ground alone, without considering the other requirements for injunctive relief.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The plaintiff’s application dated 12th March, 2018 is dismissed.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAROK
ELC CAUSE NO. 277 OF 2017
FORMERLY KISII ELC NO. 273 OF 2012
OLOISIRIRI KARDALE & 31 OTHERS..................PLAINTIFFS
-VERSUS-
THE DISTRICT LAND ADJUDICATION &
SETTLEMENT OFFICERS AND 2 OTHERS.......DEFENDANTS
RULING
(Application dated 12th March, 2018)
The Applicant came before the court by way of Notice of Motion dated 12th March, 2018 seeking an order for the maintenance of status quo on the suit property known as Nkararo Adjudication Section and more particularly on plots No. 488, 490, 498, 291, 279, 1006, 857, 765, 554, 471, 470, 482, 927, 933, 861, 910, 729, 955, 656, 657, 480, 289, 500, 1012, 491, 494, 495, 204, 492, 280, 290, 294, 139, 532, 881, 882, 836, 583, 826, 474, 880, 816, 528, 881, 608, 904, 936, 544 and 932 herein after called the plots and further an order of injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves from cultivating, selling, entering, leasing, transferring, alienating, disposing, surveying or in any way interfering with the plots hereinabove mentioned which are within the Nkararo Adjudication section.
The Application was based on the grounds that there is a dispute that is pending before court on the ownership of the suit plots and that the defendant has embarked on the process of sub dividing and subsequently selling the aforesaid parcels of land and that unless the orders sought are granted the Applicants will suffer loss and damage.
The Application was supported by the affidavit of one Oloisiriki Kardalei who averred that he has the authority of the 31 other applicants to file the Application. He states that the Defendants have embarked on the process of surveying the suit land and that plot No. 544 which was in the name of Julius Letuati Kiu has been sold to one Peter Semeyioi.
The Application was opposed by the respondents who filed grounds of opposition and contend that the Applicants have not satisfied the minimum conditions for the grant of temporary injunction.
I have read the application before me and the opposition thereof and the rival submissions that were filed thereof and the issue for determination at this stage is whether the Applicant has made out a prima facie case with a probability of success. The Applicant in the application contends that the respondents are in the process of sub dividing and selling the suit land. However, no evidence of that nature has been placed before the court to appreciate the apprehension of the applicant. The applicant states to have received information on the same but fails to even disclose the source of that information. He further states that plot No. 544 was sold but fails to establish when it was sold and by whom. There was no evidence of the sale and/or the eviction that he alleges to have taken place.
From the above I find that the Applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success and hence on that ground alone the application fails. I will not address the other grounds for grant of an injunction as that will be an academe exercise.
The upshot of the above is that the plaintiff’s application dated 12th March, 2018 is dismissed. Costs in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in open court atNAROKon this11thday ofJuly, 2018.
Mohammed Noor Kullow
Judge
11/7/18
In the presence of:
Both parties
N/A by the advocates
CA:Chuma
Mohammed Noor Kullow
Judge
11/7/18