[2014] KEHC 7341 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case by producing a sale agreement showing purchase of the suit land. The defendant failed to respond or provide any justification for his actions or claim to the land. In the absence of any contrary evidence, and applying the principles in Giella v...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 7341 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Paul Kipchumba Serem; Defendant: William Chepkwony
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 550 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Application for injunction allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Quiet Enjoyment, Proprietary Rights, Sale of Land, Possession 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
Paul Kipchumba Serem
Plaintiff
William Chepkwony
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction against the defendant.
- 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case by producing a sale agreement showing purchase of the suit land. The defendant failed to respond or provide any justification for his actions or claim to the land. In the absence of any contrary evidence, and applying the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to protection of his proprietary rights through an interlocutory injunction. The court restrained the defendant from interfering with the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the main suit, with costs to be in the cause.
Court Disposition
Application for injunction allowed.
Orders
- The defendant and/or his servants/agents are restrained from offering for sale, leasing, entering, remaining upon, ploughing, or in any way dealing with LR No. 8304 in a manner contrary to the proprietary rights of the plaintiff pending the hearing of this suit.
- Costs of the application shall be costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT ELDORET
E & L NO. 550 OF 2013
PAUL KIPCHUMBA SEREM :::::::::::: PLAINTIFF
=VERSUS=
WILLIAM CHEPKWONY :::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
(APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION; APPLICATION NOT OPPOSED; APPLICATION ALLOWED)
RULING
The application before me is that dated 18 December 2013. The plaintiff wants the defendant restrained from selling, alienating, disposing and/or ploughing and/or doing anything on the land parcel LR No. 8304 which is contrary to the quiet enjoyment of the land by the plaintiff until this suit is determined. Despite being served with the application and the suit papers, the defendant has not yet entered appearance and neither has he filed any response to the plaintiff's application.
Essentially, what the plaintiff wants is an injunction against the defendant. To succeed, the plaintiff has to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success. If the court is in doubt, it will decide the matter on a balance of convenience keeping in mind that an injunction will not normally be issued unless damages are going to be inadequate remedy in compensating the applicant for any loss. These principles were set out in the case of Giella v Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358.
The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased 10 acres of the suit land on 21st January 1997 at a consideration of Kshs. 200,000/= from one Philip Kipkurgat Kogo,who is not a party to this suit. A copy of the sale agreement is attached to the supporting affidavit. The plaintiff has averred that recently, the defendant, who is the plaintiff's brother, has been looking for a purchaser to buy the plaintiff's 10 acres of land. It is also averred that the defendant has been using the police to harass and intimidate him over the 10 acres and that he is unable to have quiet and peaceful occupation of the property. It is claimed that the defendant wants to unlawfully wrestle the land from the plaintiff and that he has unlawfully proceeded to plough the land. It is for this reason that the plaintiff wants the defendant restrained from interfering with the suit land until the suit is determined.
The only material before me is that supplied by the plaintiff. I have seen the agreement of 21st January 1997 in which the plaintiff bought the suit land. Prima facietherefore, the land belongs to the plaintiff. The defendant has not responded to the application to state why he thinks he is entitled to posses the suit land. In the premises, I see no reason why I should deny the plaintiff the injunction sought.
I therefore allow the application. I restrain the defendant and/or his servants/agents from offering for sale, leasing, entering, remaining upon, ploughing, or in any way dealing with the suit land in a manner that is contrary to the proprietary rights of the plaintiff pending the hearing of this suit. The costs of the application shall be costs in the cause.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014.
JUSTICE MUNYAO SILA
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT ELDORET.
Delivered in open court in the presence of :-
Mr. A.M. Ngigi holding brief for Mr. Kiboi for the plaintiff/applicant.
N/A for defendant.