[2014] KEHC 1853 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicant is the registered proprietor of the suit land, the respondents' long-standing occupation was not disputed. There was no evidence that the respondents had done or were likely to do anything to alter the legal or physical status of the land to the applicant's detriment....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1853 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Raphael Ondeto; Defendant: Ludofika Okumu; Defendant: Victor Okidor
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 148 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Proprietary Rights, Land 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
Raphael Ondeto
Plaintiff
Ludofika Okumu
Defendant
Victor Okidor
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interlocutory injunction orders restraining the respondents from dealing with land parcel South Teso/Amukura/1370 pending hearing of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the respondents' continued occupation of the suit land justifies the grant of injunctive relief to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicant is the registered proprietor of the suit land, the respondents' long-standing occupation was not disputed. There was no evidence that the respondents had done or were likely to do anything to alter the legal or physical status of the land to the applicant's detriment. Granting an injunction would have the same effect as granting the main relief sought in the suit, namely eviction, without a full hearing. Therefore, the threshold for granting an interlocutory injunction was not met, and the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 30th June, 2014 is rejected and dismissed with costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUSIA
ELC. NO. 148 OF 2014
RAPHAEL ONDETO...........................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LUDOFIKA OKUMU................................................1ST DEFENDANT
VICTOR OKIDOR..................................................2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G.
RAPHAEL ONDETO, the Applicants, through M/S. D.L. Were & Were company Advocates, filed the notice of motion under certificate of urgency dated 30th June, 2014 against Ludofika Okumu and Victor Ekidor, hereinafter after referred to as 1st and 2nd Respondent. He prays for injunction orders against the Respondents from dealing with land parcel south Teso/Amukura/1370. The application is opposed through the replying affidavit of the 1st Respondent.
I have carefully considered the grounds on the application, the contents of the supporting and replying affidavits and submissions presented during the hearing and find as follows:
1. That the Applicant got registered with the suit land on 5th October, 1987 and was issued with a land certificate on 2nd November, 1987 as confirmed in the annexture marked ‘’RO1’’ attached to the supporting affidavit .
2. That the Applicant has had several cases over the suit land as detailed in the supporting affidavit from the time he got registered as the proprietor in 1987.
3. That the contention by the Respondents that they have all along lived on the land has not been disputed and it is only fair the main suit be heard before the injunctive orders can be considered as they have a similar effect to the eviction orders in the main suit.
4. That there is nothing to suggest that the Respondents have done or are likely to do anything to the suit land that is different to the way they have been utilizing the suit land and which would change the legal and physical status of the suit land to the detriment of the Applicant.
Therefore the application dated 30th June, 2014 is rejected and dismissed with costs in the cause.
S.M. KIBUNJA,
JUDGE.
DATED AND DELIVERED ON 12TH .DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014.
IN THE PRESENCE OF;………N/A……………………… PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
……………PRSENT…….............1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
……………PRESENT………………2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
……………N/A……………………..PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT’S COUNSEL
JUDGE.