[2017] KEELC 1258 (KLR)
The court found that neither party had registered ownership of the disputed land, and both claimed customary rights. The plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence of ownership or a better title capable of protection by the court. The land is community land pending gazettement and adjudication, and no private...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1258 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Peter Malindi Muisyo; Defendant: Katindi Muthui; Defendant: Kyalo Muthui
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 35 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Customary Land Rights, Injunctive Relief, Adjudication Process, Community Land, Burial Rights
- 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
Peter Malindi Muisyo
Plaintiff
Katindi Muthui
Defendant
Kyalo Muthui
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of a temporary or permanent injunction restraining the defendants from burying the deceased on the disputed land.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated ownership or a better title to the disputed land capable of protection by the court.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience and interests of justice favour the grant of the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that neither party had registered ownership of the disputed land, and both claimed customary rights. The plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence of ownership or a better title capable of protection by the court. The land is community land pending gazettement and adjudication, and no private rights have been conclusively established. In the absence of clear ownership and in the interest of justice and convenience, the court declined to grant the injunctive orders sought, holding that the plaintiff had not met the threshold for an interlocutory injunction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 24th May 2017 is dismissed for lack of merit.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND HIGH COURT AT GARISSA
CASE NO 35 OF 2017
PETER MALINDI MUISYO............................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KATINDI MUTHUI................................1ST DEFENDANT
KYALO MUTHUI.................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
INTRODUCTION
The application before me is the Notice of Motion dated 24th May, 2017 brought under Order 40 Rules 1,2, 2A and 9 CPR, Section 3A CPA and all enabling provisions of the law. The plaintiff/Applicant is seeking the following orders:-
1. (Spent)
2. THAT an order of temporary injunction be issued restraining the defendants (Respondents, their family members, agents, servants and/or employees from burying the Late MUTHUI KITHEKA at the disputed piece of land No.2156 Kyuso adjudication section which has a pending appeal at the L.C.C Board at Kyuso Lands office pending the hearing and determination of this application.
3. THAT an order of permanent injunction be issued restraining defendant/respondents, their family members, agents and servants from burying the late MUTHUI KITHEKA at my parcel of land No.2156 Kyuso Adjudication section which has a pending appeal at L.C.C Board at Kyuso Lands Office until the hearing and determination of this suit.
4. THAT the Officer Commanding Kyuso Police Station together with the Chief Kimangao location and Assistant Chief Maseki Sub-location do enforce the order herein.
5. THAT cost of this application be provided for.
The application is based on grounds shown on the face of the said application and a supporting affidavit of the applicant sworn the same date.
The Plaintiff’s/Applicant’s case
In this affidavit in support of the application, the plaintiff states that the suit land belongs to him after he inherited from his late father one Muisyo Muthangya who passed on in 1998. He said that the suit land has been having dispute since 1968. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant’s father (deceased) had made a complaint to the area Assistant Chief who called for a meeting to be held on 26/6/2004. After the meeting, it was resolved that the two parties go for oath taking. On 31st August, 2004 they went for the oath taking and then the deceased was affected by the said oath taking and was rushed to Nairobi for treatment and later passed on in May 2017. The plaintiff argues that unless the orders sought are granted, he will suffer irreparable loss.
Defendants/Respondents case
The defendants, who are acting in person through their replying affidavit sworn on 7th June, 2017 stated that the land in question is an ancestral land which they inherited from their late father Muthui Kitheka who had also inherited from their grandfather one Kitheka Ngumbau. He further stated that sometime in the month of April 2017 the Survey of Kenya came and demarcated the suit land and registered under his late father’s name as P/No.2156 Kyuso Adjudication Section.
Analysis and findings
The land in dispute is not registered either in favour of the plaintiff or the defendants. Each of them is claiming customary rights over the parcel of land. No documents of ownership has been placed by the applicant to show that he has a better title capable of being protected by a court of Equity pending the full hearing of the case. From the averments contained in the affidavit evidence adduced by both sides, the land in dispute is a Community Land that is yet to be Gazetted for adjudication and idenfication for purposes of private recognition and registration. Until such exercise is conducted by the entities authorized by Law to do so. The interest of justice is better served by deciding the application on the principal of convenience. Doing the best I could in the circumstance of this case, the interest of justice tilts in declining the orders sought. Consequently, the application dated 24th May 2017 is hereby dismissed for lack of merit with each party to bear their own costs.
READ and DELIVERED in the open court this 25th day of July 2017
E.C CHERONO (MR)
ELC JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
1. Applicant
2. 1st Respondent
3. 2nd Respondent
4. Court Clerk - Ijabo