[2018] KEELC 4628 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The Plaintiff provided evidence of ownership and possession of the Suit Property, including registration documents and payment receipts. The Defendant admitted to entering the land and carrying out...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 4628 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Philip Ndirangu Karanja; Defendant: Kimani Muchina & Others
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 485 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiff; costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
- Judges
- AK Bor
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Trespass, Ownership 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
Philip Ndirangu Karanja
Plaintiff
Kimani Muchina & Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an interlocutory injunction against the Defendant and others from dealing with L.R. No. 36/22/V.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to protection from trespass and unlawful construction on the Suit Property pending determination of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The Plaintiff provided evidence of ownership and possession of the Suit Property, including registration documents and payment receipts. The Defendant admitted to entering the land and carrying out activities without the Plaintiff's consent and failed to file a substantive response or contest the Plaintiff's evidence. The court determined that the Plaintiff's proprietary rights were under threat from continued trespass and construction by the Defendant and others. Accordingly, the court granted an injunction restraining the Defendant and his associates from dealing with the...
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiff; costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
Orders
- An order of injunction is granted restraining the Defendant and the youth he works with from dealing with L.R. No. 36/22/V in Mathare Nairobi pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
ELC. CASE NO. 485 OF 2017
PHILIP NDIRANGU KARANJA..................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KIMANI MUCHINA & OTHERS..........DEFENDANTS
RULING
The Plaintiff filed the application dated 21/7/2017 against Kimani Muchina & Others seeking an order of injunction to restrain them from trespassing on, erecting structures or otherwise dealing with the land known as L.R. No. 36/22/V in Mathare (“the Suit Property”) pending hearing of this suit. He swore the affidavit in support of the application in which he states that he is 90 years old and has been possession of the Suit Property. He has been paying rent, rates and other outgoings in respect of the Suit Property. He attached a copy of the indenture showing that he is the owner of the Suit Property having been registered as the owner on 6/12/1966. He also annexed copies of receipts issued by the City Council of Nairobi on account of land and rates payment.
The Plaintiff claims that sometime in July 2017, a group of young men led by the Defendant invaded and trespassed on his land. They entered the Suit Property and erected some structures next to the Plaintiff’s rental houses. Being old and ailing, he sent some people to ask the Defendant to desist from constructing on his land but the Defendant failed to heed his call. The Defendant and the group of young men threatened the Plaintiff’s emissaries with dire consequences if they dared stop them from constructing their structures. The Plaintiff annexed photographs showing the structures erected on the Plaintiffs land.
The Defendant was served, he attended court on 31/7/2017. He came with several other young men to court. He confirmed to the court that he was carrying out a chicken breeding project on the Suit Property in conjunction with the other young men as a youth empowerment endeavor. He sought time to file his response to bring on board the other parties with whom he is pursuing the chicken breeding venture. He stated that they are over 100 in number. He did not file his response and did not attend court on 16/10/2017 when the application for injunction was argued.
The court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has a prima facie case against the Defendant and the other persons who have invaded his land and built structures for the chicken breeding project. The court grants an order of injunction to restrain the Defendant and the youth that he works with from dealing with L.R. No. 36/22/V in Mathare Nairobi pending hearing and determination of the suit. The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of this application.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 25th day of January 2018.
K. BOR
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Mr. Kamata for the Plaintiff
No appearance for the Defendant
Mr. J. Okumu- Court Assistant