[2017] KEELC 3757 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3757 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial, having produced documentary evidence of ownership of the disputed parcel. The applicants also established that they would suffer loss not adequately compensable by damages if the injunction was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3757 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Restuta Flora Khavere Shiramba; Plaintiff: Titus Luseso Shiramba; Defendant: Wellington Ekhuya Odwogo; Defendant: Patrick Lumumba Odwogo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 8 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
temporary injunction granted
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Harm, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Land Ownership Disputes Prima Facie Case Irreparable Harm Balance of Convenience

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Restuta Flora Khavere Shiramba

Plaintiff

Titus Luseso Shiramba

Plaintiff

Wellington Ekhuya Odwogo

Defendant

Patrick Lumumba Odwogo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial, having produced documentary evidence of ownership of the disputed parcel. The applicants also established that they would suffer loss not adequately compensable by damages if the injunction was not granted, as the defendants had commenced construction and other acts of interference. Applying the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown, the court determined that the balance of convenience favoured the applicants, who were in possession and had commenced developments. The court therefore granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the applicants'...

Court Disposition

temporary injunction granted

Orders

  • Pending the hearing and final determination of this suit, the defendants, their agents, employees, servants, workers, or any person acting under their direction are restrained by a temporary order of injunction from alienating, moving onto, trespassing, digging trenches, constructing structures, depositing building...
  • Cost of this application to be in the cause.