[2024] KEELC 5338 (KLR)
The court found that the application for a temporary injunction was unopposed and meritorious. In line with established legal principles and statutory provisions, it is necessary to preserve the suit property by maintaining the status quo pending the outcome of the suit. The court relied on the authority of Ogada v...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 5338 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Pius Akumu Orero; Plaintiff: Philip Osewe Orero; Plaintiff: Luke Ouma Orero; Plaintiff: Benard Onyango Orero; Plaintiff: Patrick Otieno Akumu; Plaintiff: Nicanor Owuor Akumu; Defendant: Joseph Ayo Ombewa
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Migori
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Originating Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted; status quo to be maintained
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Temporary Injunctions, 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
Pius Akumu Orero
Plaintiff
Philip Osewe Orero
Plaintiff
Luke Ouma Orero
Plaintiff
Benard Onyango Orero
Plaintiff
Patrick Otieno Akumu
Plaintiff
Nicanor Owuor Akumu
Plaintiff
Joseph Ayo Ombewa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Originating Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to a temporary injunction to preserve the suit property pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs/respondents should be restrained from disposing, charging, transferring, subdividing, or erecting permanent structures on the suit property during the pendency of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for a temporary injunction was unopposed and meritorious. In line with established legal principles and statutory provisions, it is necessary to preserve the suit property by maintaining the status quo pending the outcome of the suit. The court relied on the authority of Ogada v Mollin and section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act to grant the orders sought, restraining the parties from selling, charging, transferring, subdividing, or erecting permanent structures on the property until the suit is determined.
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted; status quo to be maintained
Orders
- The obtaining status quo over the suit property LR No. North Sakwa/Kanyamgony/1247 shall be maintained by the parties pending the outcome of the suit.
- The parties shall not sell, charge, transfer, subdivide the suit property or erect any permanent structure thereon during the pendency of this suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
Orero & 5 others v Ombewa (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 5338 (KLR) (18 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 5338 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Migori
Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2024
GMA Ongondo, J
July 18, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF : SECTIONSS 37 AND 38 OF THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT CAP 22 AND IN THE MATTER OF: SECTION 30 (g) OF THE REGISTERED LAND ACT, CAP 300 AND IN THE MATTER OF: CLAIM FPR ADVERSE POSSESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 38 OF LIMITATIONS OF ACTION ACT
Between
Pius Akumu Orero
1st Plaintiff
Philip Osewe Orero
2nd Plaintiff
Luke Ouma Orero
3rd Plaintiff
Benard Onyango Orero
4th Plaintiff
Patrick Otieno Akumu
5th Plaintiff
Nicanor Owuor Akumu
6th Plaintiff
and
Joseph Ayo Ombewa
Defendant
Ruling
1. By a Notice of motion dated 3rd April, 2024, the Defendant/Applicant through M/s. Oyoo Z. Antone and Company Advocates, is seeking a temporary injunction against the six Plaintiffs/Respondents in respect of the whole of suit property, LR No. North Sakwa/Kanyamgony/1247 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
2. The application was duly served on the respondents’ counsel as revealed in Affidavit of service sworn on 15th May 2024 herein.
3. The respondents had the right to respond to the application or not; see also Ogada v Mollin (2009) KLR 620.
4. Clearly, the respondents failed to respond to the application.
5. Ms. Z. A. Oyoo learned counsel for the applicant has urged the court to grant temporary injunction sought in this application to preserve the suit property. That the respondent intends to dispose of the same.
6. In the premises, it would be necessary to preserve the suit property in the interim, pending the outcome of the suit in line with Ogada case (supra) and section 13 (7) (a) of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011). The application is unchallenged and meritorious
7. Wherefore, the application is hereby determined that the obtaining status quo over the suit property to be maintained by the parties pending the outcome of the suit. In particular, the parties shall not sell, charge, transfer, subdivide the suit property or erect any permanent structure thereon during the pendency of this suit.
8. Costs of the application be in the cause.
9. It is so ordered
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MIGORI THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2024. G.M.A. ONGONDOJUDGEIn presence of: -Mr. Z. A. Oyoo learned counsel for the ApplicantCourt Assistant – Tom Maurice