[2014] KEHC 6165 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to prosecute the application for interlocutory injunction and inhibition on the scheduled hearing date. There was no evidence that the defendant had been served or that the applicant took steps to advance the application. In the absence of prosecution and clarity on service,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6165 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Peter Mbaabu; Plaintiff: Kenneth Koome; Plaintiff: Catherine Mwari; Defendant: Jacob Kirima Marete
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 36 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Inhibition
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Inhibition Orders, Suit Land 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
Peter Mbaabu
Plaintiff
Kenneth Koome
Plaintiff
Catherine Mwari
Plaintiff
Jacob Kirima Marete
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Inhibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from selling, transferring, or disposing of the suit land pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether an order of inhibition should be registered against the suit land titles pending hearing and determination of the application and the main suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to prosecute the application for interlocutory injunction and inhibition on the scheduled hearing date. There was no evidence that the defendant had been served or that the applicant took steps to advance the application. In the absence of prosecution and clarity on service, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application, emphasizing the necessity for applicants to actively pursue their interlocutory relief and comply with procedural requirements.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 6th March, 2014 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
E & L CASE NO. 36 OF 2014
PETER MBAABU.............................1ST PLAINTIFF
KENNETH KOOME........................2ND PLAINTIFF
CATHERINE MWARI.......................3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JACOB KIRIMA MARETE....................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This application is dated 6th March, 2014. The 2nd plaintiff sought orders:
That the application be certified urgent and the same be heard exparte and on priority basis in the first instance.
That pending interpartes hearing of the application an order of temporary injunction be granted restraining the defendant/respondent, his agents and servants from selling, transferring and disposing off the suit land Nos. NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3659, NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3660,NTIMA/NTAKIRA3661,NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3662 and NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3663.
That pending hearing and determination of the main suit an order of temporary injunction be granted restraining the defendant/respondent, his agents and servants from selling, transferring and disposing off the suit land Nos. NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3659, NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3660,NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3661,NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3662and NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3663.
Pending hearing and determination of the application interpartes of the application an order of inhibition do issue and be registered against title Nos. NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3659, NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3660, NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3661, NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3662 and NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3663.
Pending hearing and determination of the main suit an order of inhibition (sic) Nos.NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3659,NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3660,NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3661, NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3662, and NTIMA/NTAKIRA/3663.
Costs of the application be provided for
Interim orders in terms of prayers 2 and 4 were granted on 11. 3.2014. The application was fixed for interpartes hearing on 25. 3.2014. During the hearing, the applicant did not prosecute his case. It was not clear whether the defendant/respondent had been served or not.
In the circumstances, I dismiss the application.
Delivered in Open court this 25th day of March, 2014 in the presence of:
Cc. Daniel
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE