[2016] KEHC 2823 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 2823 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, as the land in question (Title No. Sinyerere/Sitatunga Block 3/Taito/95) had already been subdivided and its title closed. The applicant's interests as a beneficiary were addressed in the succession and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 2823 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Patricia Achieng Sawo; Defendant: Hellen Chemeli Kenduiywa; Defendant: Juliana Cheptoo Kenduiywa; Defendant: Ruth Chebet Kenduiywa; Defendant: Mark Kenduiywa; Defendant: Lilian Chepkoech Kenduiywa
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Land Case 78 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Application for Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Judges
EO Obaga
Legal Topics
Succession and Distribution, Injunctions, Land Subdivision, Beneficiary Rights
Source Language
en
Land and Property Succession and Distribution Injunctions Land Subdivision Beneficiary 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Achieng Sawo

Plaintiff

Hellen Chemeli Kenduiywa

Defendant

Juliana Cheptoo Kenduiywa

Defendant

Ruth Chebet Kenduiywa

Defendant

Mark Kenduiywa

Defendant

Lilian Chepkoech Kenduiywa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Ruling on Application for Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of an injunction.
  2. 2 Whether an injunction can be issued over land whose title has been closed and is non-existent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's interests as a beneficiary have been adequately addressed in the succession and subdivision process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, as the land in question (Title No. Sinyerere/Sitatunga Block 3/Taito/95) had already been subdivided and its title closed. The applicant's interests as a beneficiary were addressed in the succession and subdivision process, and the minor boundary adjustments were necessary to accommodate all beneficiaries. The applicant's house and occupation were not interfered with, and her claim for a fresh survey to restore her to her previous position was untenable. The court held that an injunction cannot be issued over non-existent property and dismissed the application with costs to the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The applicant's application for injunction is dismissed with costs to the respondents.