[2017] KEELC 389 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 389 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success based on uncontroverted evidence of ownership and succession to the suit property. The threat of demolition of their houses and loss of land constituted irreparable harm that could not be adequately compensated by damages. Since the application was unopposed and the evidence was clear, the court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with road construction through the plaintiffs' homestead pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 389 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Kipkurui Koskei; Plaintiff: Philip Kochil; Defendant: Stephen Sagiruk; Defendant: Paul Rono; Defendant: Land Registrar Nakuru
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 115 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Interlocutory Ruling on Application for Injunction
Outcome
injunction granted
Judges
DO Ohungo
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Land Ownership, Succession, Road Construction Disputes
Source Language
English
Land and Property Injunctions Land Ownership Succession Road Construction Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Kipkurui Koskei

Plaintiff

Philip Kochil

Plaintiff

Stephen Sagiruk

Defendant

Paul Rono

Defendant

Land Registrar Nakuru

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Interlocutory Ruling on Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiffs if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success based on uncontroverted evidence of ownership and succession to the suit property. The threat of demolition of their houses and loss of land constituted irreparable harm that could not be adequately compensated by damages. Since the application was unopposed and the evidence was clear, the court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with road construction through the plaintiffs' homestead pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Court Disposition

injunction granted

Orders

  • An injunction is granted restraining the respondents, their servants, employees, contractors and/or authorized agents from proceeding with the road construction through the applicants' homestead on land parcel LR N. Nakuru/Olenguruone/Chepakundi/1381 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
  • Costs to the plaintiffs.