[2022] KEELC 3580 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 3580 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The absence of a response from the defendants strengthened the plaintiff's position. The court held that to prevent possible interference with the suit properties and to preserve the status quo pending the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 3580 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Augustine Genga Ondigo (Suing as the Chairman, Committee Member And Co-Coordinator Of Kanyamony Clan Affected Land Property Owners On Their Own Behalf And Behalf Of Members Of Kanyamony Affected Land And Property Owners); Defendant: District Land Registrar Kisumu; Defendant: Provincial Land Surveyor; Defendant: Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 35 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
temporary injunction granted; other prayers declined; costs in the cause
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Boundary Disputes, Land Registration, Proprietary Rights
Source Language
en
Land and Property Injunctive Relief Boundary Disputes Land Registration Proprietary Rights

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

Augustine Genga Ondigo (Suing as the Chairman, Committee Member And Co-Coordinator Of Kanyamony Clan Affected Land Property Owners On Their Own Behalf And Behalf Of Members Of Kanyamony Affected Land And Property Owners)

Plaintiff

District Land Registrar Kisumu

Defendant

Provincial Land Surveyor

Defendant

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit properties pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be compelled to define and demarcate the boundaries of the suit properties under section 19 of the Land Registration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success to warrant the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The absence of a response from the defendants strengthened the plaintiff's position. The court held that to prevent possible interference with the suit properties and to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the main suit, a temporary injunction was warranted. However, the court declined to grant the additional orders sought for immediate boundary demarcation and survey, finding that such substantive relief should await the full hearing of the suit. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

temporary injunction granted; other prayers declined; costs in the cause

Orders

  • A temporary order of injunction is issued restraining the respondents, their servants, agents, or anyone acting on their behalf from entering, selling, encroaching, or interfering in any manner with the existing boundary line between Kanyakwar and Kogony sub-location (Kisumu/Kogony C18 Scheme) and the listed...
  • All other prayers in the application are declined.