[2015] KEHC 1506 (KLR)
Given the highly contested and contradictory evidence of ownership presented by both parties, and in line with the principle that status quo should be maintained where there are serious conflicts of fact, the court finds it appropriate to confirm the interim orders of injunction and inhibition previously granted....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 1506 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Reuben Opile Wilson; Defendant: Linet Adhiambo Amollo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 667 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Court Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Interim injunction and inhibition orders confirmed pending full hearing; costs in the cause.
- Legal Topics
- Ownership Disputes, Title Registration, Injunctive Relief
- 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
Reuben Opile Wilson
Plaintiff
Linet Adhiambo Amollo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction over L.R. No. 209/11057.
- 2 Whether the evidence of ownership presented by both parties justifies the maintenance of status quo pending full hearing.
- 3 Whether the court should confirm the interim orders of injunction and inhibition until the suit is determined.
Ratio Decidendi
Given the highly contested and contradictory evidence of ownership presented by both parties, and in line with the principle that status quo should be maintained where there are serious conflicts of fact, the court finds it appropriate to confirm the interim orders of injunction and inhibition previously granted. This ensures that neither party is prejudiced pending the full hearing, where evidence can be properly tested and the substantive dispute resolved. The court thus maintains the status quo to preserve the subject matter until the merits of the case are determined at trial.
Court Disposition
Interim injunction and inhibition orders confirmed pending full hearing; costs in the cause.
Orders
- The orders of temporary injunction and inhibition granted on 5th June 2013 are confirmed pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ELC NO. 667 OF 2013
REUBEN OPILE WILSON....................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LINET ADHIAMBO AMOLLO..........................................DEFENDANT
RULING
On 5th June 2013 the Court granted an order of temporary injunction against the Defendant restraining her from alienating, trespassing, or interfering with the Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment, possession and occupation of L.R. No. 209/11057 Villa Franca(the suit property). The Court also ordered an inhibition against the registration of any form of registration in the ownership, leasing, sub-leasing, allotment, user, occupation or any kind of right, title or interest in the suit property. It is these orders that the Plaintiff seek to be confirmed pending the determination of the suit.
The Plaintiff swore an affidavit on 5th June 2013 in support of the application and a further affidavit sworn on 11th August 2014. The Plaintiff deposed that he is the registered owner of the suit property and availed a title in his favour, land rent invoices, land rates demands and water utility bills to show ownership. The Plaintiff stated that the suit property was initially described as Plot No. 34 Villa Franca – Nairobi and annexed an allotment letter in his favour dated 2nd November 1987. Upon being issued with the title deed, the Plaintiff states that he commenced construction of a residential house completing the first floor and the walls of the second floor when the project stalled. On returning to complete the project, he found that the Defendant had put a roof over the structures and rented out to tenants. On conducting a search at the Lands Office, he learnt that the deed file had gone missing and that the Defendant was in the process of changing the names.
The application was opposed by the Defendant vide a Replying Affidavit and a Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 26th June 2014and 2nd October 2014, respectively.It was her disposition that she acquired the suit property through an allotment letter and paid for the same in 1987. Subsequently, she received title deed for L.R. No. 209/11057on25th July 1990. The Defendant contended that her ownership is also evidenced by the payments of rates. It is was her deposition that she commenced developing the suit property by clearing the bushes and securing it with barbed wire fence which she later removed and constructed stone walls with trees. The Defendant maintained that she has been in occupation of the suit property since 1996 and did all the excavation works thereon contrary to Plaintiff’s allegations.
The Plaintiff further filed submissions dated 16th September 2014, which I have carefully read and considered the authorities cited therein.
Both parties claim ownership of L.R. No. 209/11057, Villa Franca and have availed to this Court copies of Certificates of Title in their favour demonstrating ownership. The Plaintiff averred that he had commenced construction thereon which stalled and when he resumed, he found that the Defendant had put a roof and rented out to tenants. This averment was refuted by the Defendant who claimed to have excavated and constructed the building before renting out to her tenants. Evidently, the evidence produced by the Plaintiff at this stage as to its ownership of the suit property has been highly contested and contradicted by evidence produced by the Defendant,
This matter being highly contentious, it is safe for this court to maintain status quo and direct the matter to proceed to full hearing where all parties will be afforded an opportunity to give evidence and the veracity of their evidence tested on cross-examination. This was the finding of their in the case of Ougo v Otieno & another Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1987 (1987) eKLR where they held that the general principle is that where there are serious conflicts of facts, the trial court should maintain status quo until the dispute has been decided on trial.
In that regard, I confirm the orders granted on 5th June 2013, pending the hearing and determination of the suit. Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered this10th day of July, 2015
L.GACHERU
JUDGE
In the Presence of:-
Mr Analo holding brief for Mbichire for the Plaintiff/Applicant
Mr Dola for the Defendant/Respondent
Lerionka: Court Clerk
L.GACHERU
JUDGE