[2012] KEHC 3243 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding ownership of the disputed portion, as it was unclear whether the portion formed part of the land parcel he purchased or was a distinct plot leased from the county council. The agreement of sale was not exhibited to clarify this...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3243 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Paul Ishmael Aketch; Defendant: Rosemary Nasambu; Defendant: Margaret Nanjala Wafula; Defendant: Victoria Nakhanu Wafula; Defendant: Peter Simiyu Malewa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 50 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Ownership Dispute, Injunctive Relief, Land Title, Proprietary Claims
- 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
Paul Ishmael Aketch
Plaintiff
Rosemary Nasambu
Defendant
Margaret Nanjala Wafula
Defendant
Victoria Nakhanu Wafula
Defendant
Peter Simiyu Malewa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the disputed portion forms part of land parcel no. W.Bukusu/S.Mateka/1716 or is a distinct plot leased from Bungoma County Council.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff purchased the disputed portion together with the main parcel.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of a temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding ownership of the disputed portion, as it was unclear whether the portion formed part of the land parcel he purchased or was a distinct plot leased from the county council. The agreement of sale was not exhibited to clarify this issue, and the continued occupation by the defendants was not shown to be unlawful at this stage. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not plead or prove that he would suffer irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages if the injunction was not granted. The balance of convenience therefore favoured refusing the application for a temporary injunction. As a result, the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA ATBUNGOMA
CIVIL SUIT 50 OF 2008
PAUL ISHMAEL AKETCH.........................................................................................PLAINTIFF
~VRS~
ROSEMARY NASAMBU................................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
MARGARET NANJALA WAFULA...............................................................2ND DEFENDANT
VICTORIA NAKHANU WAFULA.................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
PETER SIMIYU MALEWA............................................................................4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of land parcel no.W. Bukusu/S. Mateka/1716 which he bought from the deceased Joseph Wafula Wakhungu who was the husband of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. His case is that on the land was a portion on which was erected a butchery and which, although forming part of what he bought from the deceased, the 1st to 3rd Defendants have continued to occupy and use. He says that they purported to sell it to the 4th Defendant. This is why he filed this suit for the eviction of the Defendants, for permanent injunction and for costs.
The 1st to 4th Defendants filed a joint defence to admit that the land parcel no.W.Bukusu/S.Mateka/1716 belongs to the Plaintiff who bought it from the deceased. They, however, deny that the portion, which they say is plot no.7 at Wamunyiri market under Bungoma County council, forms part of that title. They state that the deceased was a lessee of the plot which is a distinct portion and whose boundary with the Plaintiff’s land is the borne of contention. They pleaded that they have a proprietary claim over the plot which they can assign or transfer, but denied that they have made any attempt to dispose of it.
The Plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 rules 1, 2 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 3, 3A and 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act for a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants, and all those acting under them, from ploughing, attempting to plough, cutting down trees, or in any way blocking the access road or in any other way interfering with his right of peaceful occupation and user of the land parcel. The 1st Defendant filed a response to the application repeating what was stated in the joint defence.
The questions that will occupy the mind of the court during trial are whether the portion in question forms part of the land parcel no.W.Bukusu/S.Mateka/1716 or it is a distinct and separate plot leased from the Bungoma County Council, and whether the Plaintiff bought the portion together with the parcel. What is clear is that, although this suit was filed on 10/9/2008 the Plaintiff has had title to W.Bukusu/S.Mateka/1716 since 18/6/2003. The agreement to buy this parcel from the deceased must have been earlier. The agreement was not exhibited to see whether it made any reference to the portion in dispute. Whatever is the case, the portion had a butchery at purchase and the 1st to 3rd Defendants have continued to occupy and operate it. It is not clear whether after the purchase, there was any understanding between the parties regarding the portion. In short, at this stage the court has not been pursuaded that the Plaintiff has a prima facie case against the Defendants in regard to the ownership of the portion. Both parties will have to call evidence and the same to be interrogated before a decision is made either way.
There was no plea or proof that if the application is not granted the Plaintiff will suffer such harm or injury that damages cannot sufficiently compensate. I find that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of refusing the application. I dismiss the application with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Bungoma this 11th day of July, 2012.
A. O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE