[2016] KEHC 8132 (KLR)
The court found that it was not in dispute that the plaintiffs were in occupation of the suit property at the time it was purchased by the 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants as trustees of P.C.E.A Thindigua Church. Given the plaintiffs' claim for rights by prescription and the need to preserve the status quo, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 8132 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Peter Thuo Kamau; Plaintiff: Grace Muthoni Thuo; Defendant: Lucy Wamaitha Kiarie; Defendant: Samuel Kiarie; Defendant: Faith Muthoni Churu; Defendant: Joseph Ndungu Njoroge; Defendant: Lucy Wambui Waweru; Defendant: The Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 93 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Ruling / Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Interim orders granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
- Judges
- MM Gitumbi
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Prescriptive 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 Thuo Kamau
Plaintiff
Grace Muthoni Thuo
Plaintiff
Lucy Wamaitha Kiarie
Defendant
Samuel Kiarie
Defendant
Faith Muthoni Churu
Defendant
Joseph Ndungu Njoroge
Defendant
Lucy Wambui Waweru
Defendant
The Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Ruling / Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to remain in occupation of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for interim orders based on their claim of rights by prescription.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it was not in dispute that the plaintiffs were in occupation of the suit property at the time it was purchased by the 3rd, 4th, and 5th defendants as trustees of P.C.E.A Thindigua Church. Given the plaintiffs' claim for rights by prescription and the need to preserve the status quo, the court held that the plaintiffs should continue to remain in occupation of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The court further directed that a date for pre-trial conference be allocated to expedite the hearing.
Court Disposition
Interim orders granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
Orders
- The plaintiffs shall continue to remain in occupation of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- The court shall allocate a date for pre-trial conference to expedite the hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
ELC. CASE NO. 93 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT
CAP.22 LAWS OF KENYA
IN THE MATTER OF LAND REFERENCE NO. 76/364 SITUATED AT THINDIGUA IN KIAMBU MUNICIPALITY OF KIAMBU COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF CLAIM FOR RIGHTS TO LAND BY PRESCRIPTION
BETWEEN
PETER THUO KAMAU………………......…..………...…..…… 1ST PLAINTIFF
GRACE MUTHONI THUO….………….....…..…...……….…… 2ND PLAINTIFF
AND
LUCY WAMAITHA KIARIE…………....….………...……...…1ST DEFENDANT
SAMUEL KIARIE…………………...……..……..…...……….2ND DEFENDANT
FAITH MUTHONI CHURU
JOSEPH NDUNGU NJOROGE
LUCY WAMBUI WAWERU.................................3RD, 4TH & 5TH DEFENDANTS
(SUED AS THE TRUSTEES OF P.C.E.A THINDIGUA CHURCH)
THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR, NAIROBI................................6TH DEFENDANT
RULING
I have studied this file, particularly Notice of Motion dated 9th February 2015, the Supporting Affidavit and the annexures thereto.
I have also studied Lucy Kiarie’s Replying Affidavit sworn on 23rd March 2015 and Faith Churus Replying Affidavit sworn on 31st march 2015.
I have also studied Peter Kamau’s Further Affidavit sworn on 5th May 2015.
I have considered the written submissions filed by both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.
It is not in dispute that the Plaintiffs are in occupation of the suit property and were in occupation at the time the suit property was purchased by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants as trustees of P.C.E.A Thindigua Church. In these circumstances, I direct that the Plaintiffs do continue to remain in occupation of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
To expedite the hearing of this suit, this court to allocate a date for pre-trial conference.
It is so ordered
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN NAIROBI THIS 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
MARY M. GITUMBI
JUDGE