[2006] KEHC 1221 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs, being only four members out of the entire Group Ranch membership, failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success. The evidence showed that Annual General Meetings were held as required, and the applicants' grievances had already been addressed by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1221 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Panian Ole Motua; Plaintiff: Emmanuel Leshai Sane; Plaintiff: Kenyatta Oloitiptip; Plaintiff: Haron Mesopir Kiparo; Defendant: The Registered Group Representatives, Kimana Tikondo Group Ranch
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 522 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Legal Topics
- Group Ranch Management, Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Allocation 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
Panian Ole Motua
Plaintiff
Emmanuel Leshai Sane
Plaintiff
Kenyatta Oloitiptip
Plaintiff
Haron Mesopir Kiparo
Plaintiff
The Registered Group Representatives, Kimana Tikondo Group Ranch
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of an injunction.
- 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of the orders sought by the plaintiffs.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs, being only four members out of the entire Group Ranch membership, failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success. The evidence showed that Annual General Meetings were held as required, and the applicants' grievances had already been addressed by the relevant authorities. The plaintiffs did not establish that the balance of convenience was in their favour or that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The orders sought would unduly inhibit the operations of the Group Ranch, which is managed by elected officials removable only by majority vote. Consequently, the application for injunctive relief was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The plaintiffs' application for interlocutory injunction is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 522 of 2006
PANIAN OLE MOTUA………………………..................................................………….…1ST PLAINTIFF
EMMAUEL LESHAI SANE………………….................................................…………….2ND PLAINTIFF
KENYATTA OLOITIPTIP………………………..................................................…………3RD PLAINTIFF
HARON MESOPIR KIPARO……….................................................………………….….4TH PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THE REGISTERED GROUP REPRESENTATIVES
KIMANA TIKONDO GROUP RANCH………..........................................…………………DEFENDANT
RULING
The applicants by way of this Chamber Summons dated 19th May 2006 seek inter alia the following orders:
(a) An order restraining the defendants from subdividing, allocating, disposing off or transferring land belonging to the Group Ranch.
(b) An order restraining the defendants from conducting any affairs of the Group Ranch.
(c) An order restraining the defendants from operating the Group Ranch Accounts and
(d) An order appointing a receiver/manager to manage the affairs of the Group Ranch.
The application is premised on the following grounds:
(i) The defendant is operating illegally as it has failed to convene an Annual General Meeting for 2004-2005.
(ii) The defendant is subdividing the Group Ranch in disregard to an order from the District Officer Loitokitok.
(iii) The defendant has failed to account for the money paid to it.
(iv) The defendant has failed to have an office, keep crucial records and allow access to the same.
(v) There is rampant corruption in the management of the affairs of the Group Ranch.
The application is also supported by an affidavit sworn by Panian Ole Mutoa in which he avers on similar facts as those contained in the plaint.
The application is opposed by the Respondents who have filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by DANIEL MPOTE NINA which deals in detail with the applicants complaints and in my view exhaustively. The first Annual General Meeting was held on 26th March 2003 in which it was agreed that next Annual General Meeting would be held on 9th August 2004 and which was held accordingly and the Annual General Meeting for 2005 was held on 2nd September 2005 an for 2006 it was scheduled for 2nd September 2006. All these Annual General Meetings were attended by Government officials as required by the law and the Applicants were in attendance.
The applicants are only 4 out of the entire membership of the Group Ranch and it appears that they are dissatisfied with the way the officials are running the Group Ranch. On 9th February 2006 they had written the District Land Adjudication Officer expressing their grievances and sought urgent action. The District Land Adjudication Officer had acted on their complaints. He had written the Chairman of the Group Ranch stopping him from further allocation of land to members and requested for a meeting for 20th February 2006 over the issue. The Chairman was also requested to submit the list of all the beneficiaries and a comprehensive financial report since the new officials took over.
The letter was copied to the Director of Adjudication and Settlement, the District Officer – Loitoktok, the District Land Registrar and the Area Member of Parliament. The applicants seem to be dissatisfied minority who either do not like the manner in which the current officials are running the Group.
These officials are usually elected to those elective posts and can only be removed by the vote of the majority. The orders sought if granted will completely inhibit the operations of the Respondent.
For the applicants to succeed, they have to show that:
(a) they have a prima facie case with a probability of success
(b) the balance of convenience is in their favour
(c) they would suffer irreparable damage if injunction is not granted.
This they have failed to do and their application is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 28th day of September 2006.
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE