[2014] KEHC 4961 (KLR)
The applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, as his own documents (title deed, green card, mutation forms) showed the land size as 0.05 ha, not 0.39 ha as claimed. There was no evidence that the respondents interfered with the 0.05 ha or the alleged difference. The applicant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4961 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Mwangi Thumbi; Respondent: George Sitati; Respondent: Paul Situma
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 48 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Title Disputes, Status Quo Orders, Burden of Proof
- 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 Mwangi Thumbi
Applicant
George Sitati
Respondent
Paul Situma
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction.
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated entitlement to land measuring 0.39 ha as opposed to 0.05 ha.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, as his own documents (title deed, green card, mutation forms) showed the land size as 0.05 ha, not 0.39 ha as claimed. There was no evidence that the respondents interfered with the 0.05 ha or the alleged difference. The applicant did not establish that damages would not be an adequate remedy. Consequently, the application did not meet the threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown, and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application dated 3rd March 2014 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE NO. 48 OF 2014
PETER MWANGI THUMBI …................................... PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
GEORGE SITATI.................................... 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
PAUL SITUMA........................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The notice of motion dated 3rd March 2014 brought under order 40 rule 1 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 1A, 1B and 3, 3A and 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act seeks the following orders;
3. That the status quo be maintained.
4. That the Respondents be ordered to remove the illegal structures erected by them illegally and repair the perimeter wall forthwith.
5. That a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, workers or any person claiming under them, from selling, disposing, charging, wasting, tilling, erecting structures and/or interfering in whatsoever manner with land parcel No.NDIVISI/MUCHI/3465 measuring zero decimal three nine (0. 39ha) hectares pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
6. Any other order this honourable court may deem just and expedient to grant.
7. That the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is opposed. Both Respondents have sworn replying affidavits challenging the facts as put by the Applicant. The 1st Respondent deposes he sold the Applicant the suitland which according to him is 0. 05 ha and not 0. 39 ha as alleged. Secondly the Applicant's land shares no common boundary with the 2nd Respondent's title.
3. The 2nd Respondent deposes that the application is spurious, misconceived and incompetent. He contends that the Applicant wants to expand his land from 0. 05 ha to 0. 39 ha. Further that his land NDIVISI/MUCHI/3213 has no affinity to the suitland as they were hived off different parcels of land. He asked the court to dismiss the application with costs to him.
4. Both advocates for the parties submitted orally for and against the application. I have considered those submissions and need not reproduce them here. In the Applicant's affidavit, he annexed copies of a written sale agreement, title deed and green card and mutation forms. The sale agreement does not disclose the size of land sold. The title deed and copy of the register (green card) gives the size of the suit land NDIVISI/MUCHI/3465 is 0. 05 ha in size. From the copy of the register, it was opened on 16th July 1992. Page 3 of the mutation form also shows the suit land as measuring 0. 05 ha.
5. The Applicant avers that on the ground, the size of the suitland is 0. 39 ha and the Respondents demolished property that is on portion of land owned by him as per the annexed photographs. He asked the court to issue orders restraining the respondents from interfering with his land measuring 0. 39 ha. From his own documents annexed, he has nothing to show his land is 0. 39 ha. He did not disclose whether the Respondents interfered with the portion measuring 0. 05 ha or the difference (i.e 0. 39 – 0. 05). Until this suit is determined it is difficult at this stage with the documents available to establish whether the applicant is entitled to land measuring or 0. 39 ha.
6. I do find the Applicant has therefore failed to show that he has a prima facie case with probability of success or that damages he will suffer if the orders are not granted cannot be compensated by way of damages. The upshot is that he has not convinced the court that his application meets the threshold laid in the renowned case of Giella vs. Cassman Brown. I proceed to dismiss this application with costs to the Respondents.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED this 22nd day of MAY 2014
A. OMOLLO
JUDGE.