[2015] KEHC 3342 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 3342 (KLR)

The court found that the parties had reached a comprehensive consent resolving the plaintiff's application for injunctive relief. The consent provided for the equal sharing of the suit land, clear demarcation of respective portions, maintenance of the status quo regarding developments, and mutual access to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 3342 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rebecca Karimi; Defendant: M'Lingera M'Tutuchiu; Defendant: The District Land & Adjudication Officer - Igembe District; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 50 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application and Adoption of Consent
Outcome
Application marked as settled by consent; consent adopted as order of the court; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Disputes, Injunctive Relief, Possession and Occupation, Land Sharing, Status Quo Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adjudication Disputes Injunctive Relief Possession and Occupation Land Sharing Status Quo Orders

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rebecca Karimi

Plaintiff

M'Lingera M'Tutuchiu

Defendant

The District Land & Adjudication Officer - Igembe District

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application and Adoption of Consent

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with her occupation and use of the suit land.
  2. 2 Whether the consent agreement between the parties should be adopted as an order of the court.
  3. 3 How the suit land should be shared and accessed by the parties pending determination of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the parties had reached a comprehensive consent resolving the plaintiff's application for injunctive relief. The consent provided for the equal sharing of the suit land, clear demarcation of respective portions, maintenance of the status quo regarding developments, and mutual access to the homestead. The consent also restrained the 1st defendant's children from interfering with the plaintiff's use of her portion and provided for equal sharing of the current season's harvest. The court adopted the consent as an order, thereby settling the application dated 9th July 2015, with costs in the cause. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that a consent order,...

Court Disposition

Application marked as settled by consent; consent adopted as order of the court; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Suit land to be shared into two equal portions between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.
  • Land Demarcation Officer of Lower Gaiti “B” Adjudication Section to determine respective shares on the ground.