[2017] KEELC 1651 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1651 (KLR)

The court found that while the 1st Plaintiff, as the registered proprietor, had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, she failed to demonstrate that she would suffer irreparable loss or damage if the injunction was not granted. The existence of a sale agreement for a specific amount (Kshs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1651 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Raurenjia Nguru Njiri; Plaintiff: James Murithi Njeru; Defendant: Jane Terry Wanjiru Mbogo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 51 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Fraudulent Transfer of Title, Trusts for Children
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Land Ownership Disputes Fraudulent Transfer of Title Trusts for Children

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raurenjia Nguru Njiri

Plaintiff

James Murithi Njeru

Plaintiff

Jane Terry Wanjiru Mbogo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction against the Defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss or damage if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the value of the suit property is quantifiable and compensable by damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the 1st Plaintiff, as the registered proprietor, had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, she failed to demonstrate that she would suffer irreparable loss or damage if the injunction was not granted. The existence of a sale agreement for a specific amount (Kshs 1,100,000) indicated that the value of the suit property was quantifiable and any loss could be compensated by damages. Consequently, the second principle for granting an interlocutory injunction was not satisfied, and the application was disallowed without the need to consider the balance of convenience.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The 1st Plaintiff’s notice of motion dated 8th March 2017 is disallowed.
  • There shall be no orders as to costs.