[2022] KEELC 1415 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 1415 (KLR)

The court found that the matter should be determined on the balance of convenience. The 1st respondent was registered as owner in 2010, so the statutory period for adverse possession had not lapsed, and adverse possession may not apply to public land. The National Land Commission had not clarified the process of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 1415 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Orpha Atieno Ongwen; Applicant: John Okoth Ongwen; Respondent: Prof. Shellemiah Oloth Keya; Respondent: The National Land Commission
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E027 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
interlocutory injunction granted in the form of status quo order
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition, Injunctive Relief, Adverse Possession, Public Land Allocation
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Compulsory Acquisition Injunctive Relief Adverse Possession Public Land Allocation

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Orpha Atieno Ongwen

Applicant

John Okoth Ongwen

Applicant

Prof. Shellemiah Oloth Keya

Respondent

The National Land Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their occupation of LR 15329 and LR 126283 pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the process of compulsory acquisition of the applicants' ancestral land was completed in accordance with the law and whether compensation was made.
  3. 3 Whether the 1st respondent's title is valid in light of the alleged irregularities in acquisition and allocation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the matter should be determined on the balance of convenience. The 1st respondent was registered as owner in 2010, so the statutory period for adverse possession had not lapsed, and adverse possession may not apply to public land. The National Land Commission had not clarified the process of acquisition for public purpose. Given the competing claims and the risk of irreparable harm to both parties, the court held that the status quo should be maintained to preserve the subject matter pending the hearing of the main suit. Both parties were restrained from putting up any structures or engaging in wasteful use of the property until the suit is determined.

Court Disposition

interlocutory injunction granted in the form of status quo order

Orders

  • Status quo to be maintained pending hearing of the main suit.
  • Both parties are restrained from putting up any structure on the suit parcel of land.