[2017] KEELC 2273 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2273 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction and inhibition. The plaintiffs had been in occupation of the disputed 5 acres since 1980, had financed the defendant's representation in clan land disputes, and had relied on the defendant's promise to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 2273 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Mugo; Plaintiff: Catherine Igoki Mugo; Defendant: Stephen Njagi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 21 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Inhibition
Outcome
interlocutory injunction and inhibition granted; costs in the cause
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Adjudication Disputes, Clan Land Rights, Interlocutory Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Adjudication Disputes Clan Land Rights Interlocutory Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Peter Mugo

Plaintiff

Catherine Igoki Mugo

Plaintiff

Stephen Njagi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Inhibition

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for grant of a temporary injunction against the defendant pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether an order of inhibition should issue to preserve the suit property pending determination of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction and inhibition. The plaintiffs had been in occupation of the disputed 5 acres since 1980, had financed the defendant's representation in clan land disputes, and had relied on the defendant's promise to transfer the land. The defendant's threat to sell the land posed a risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, who depended on the land for their livelihood. The court, applying the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown, determined that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit. Consequently, the court granted...

Court Disposition

interlocutory injunction and inhibition granted; costs in the cause

Orders

  • Temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or assigns from trespassing, encroaching, wasting, constructing, selling, alienating or otherwise interfering with the plaintiffs' 5 acres on land parcel No.677 Kamwimbi “A” Adjudication section pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  • Order of inhibition against land parcel No.677 Kamwimbi “A” Adjudication section pending hearing and determination of the suit.