[2017] KEELC 3510 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case by providing documentary evidence of ownership of the suit property and demonstrating that the defendant had no color of right to enter or interfere with the land. The defendant failed to respond or present any evidence of her own interest in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3510 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Richard Kiprono Barchok; Defendant: Mercy Chebet Langat
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 79 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application for injunction allowed
- Judges
- MA Silau
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Ownership Dispute, Quiet Possession
- 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
Richard Kiprono Barchok
Plaintiff
Mercy Chebet Langat
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the defendant has any legal right or interest in the suit land.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case by providing documentary evidence of ownership of the suit property and demonstrating that the defendant had no color of right to enter or interfere with the land. The defendant failed to respond or present any evidence of her own interest in the property. The court held that, in the absence of any competing claim or justification from the defendant, and given the risk of continued interference with the plaintiff's quiet possession, the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm favored granting the interlocutory injunction. The application was therefore allowed, restraining the defendant from entering or...
Court Disposition
application for injunction allowed
Orders
- The defendant and/or her servants, agents, or assigns are restrained from entering or being upon UNS. Residential Plot No. 256-Kericho Municipality pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- The defendant is restrained from interfering with any fencing or activity by the plaintiff on the suit land pending hearing and determination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
ELC NO.79 OF 2016
RICHARD KIPRONO BARCHOK…………..……..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MERCY CHEBET LANGAT………..…….……..DEFENDANT
RULING
(Application for injunction; plaintiff stating that he is the owner of the suit land; defendant interfering with it; no response filed by the defendant; application unopposed; application allowed)
1. This suit was commenced by way of a plaint filed on 21 November 2016. The plaintiff's case is that he is the owner of the land parcel described as UNS. Residential Plot No. 256-Kericho Municipality. His case is that the defendant has without any colour of right entered into the land and stopped the plaintiff from fencing the said land. As a result of the defendant's action, the plaintiff has been unable to fence his land. In this suit, the plaintiff has sought orders inter alia for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from the suit land.
2. Together with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application for injunction which is the subject of this ruling. In the application, the plaintiff has sought for orders to have the defendant restrained from the suit land pending hearing and determination of the case.
3. Despite being served, the defendant has not entered appearance and did not file anything to respond to the application. The only material that I have is therefore only that provided by the plaintiff.
4. In his supporting affidavit, the plaintiff has deposed that he purchased the suit property from one Mercy Chebet (not the respondent) and has displayed a letter of allotment issued to the said Mercy Chebet and a sale agreement dated 6 June 2013 vide which he purchased the property. I have no reason to doubt that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property. The defendant has not displayed anything that would demonstrate that she has any right over the suit land. In my view, the plaintiff has displayed a prima facie case with a probability of success. If the injunction is not issued, there is a risk that the defendant may continue interfering with the plaintiff's quiet possession and cause him loss.
5. I therefore allow this application for injunction and order the defendant and/or her servants/agents/assigns not to enter or be upon the suit land, and not to interfere with any fencing or any activity being undertaken by the plaintiff on the suit land pending the hearing and determination of this suit. The plaintiff shall also have the costs of this application.
6. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Kericho this 3rd day of February 2017
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
KERICHO
PRESENT;
No appearance on part of M/s Nyaingiri & Co. Advocates for the Plaintiff/Applicant
No appearance entered for the Defendant/Respondent
Court Assistant; Wambany