[2015] KEHC 2123 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence of the respondent's intent to further develop, alienate, or dispose of the suit property. There was no attempt to establish the boundaries between the two plots or prove actual encroachment. The photographs showed the wall was already built, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2123 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Saab Enterprises Ltd; Defendant: Peterson Maina
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 205 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- AA Omollo
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Land Encroachment, Boundary Disputes, Perimeter Wall Construction
- 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
Saab Enterprises Ltd
Plaintiff
Peterson Maina
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from developing, dealing or disposing of the suit property pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the construction of the perimeter wall by the respondent constitutes encroachment or changes the topography of the applicant's property.
- 3 Whether the applicant has met the legal threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence of the respondent's intent to further develop, alienate, or dispose of the suit property. There was no attempt to establish the boundaries between the two plots or prove actual encroachment. The photographs showed the wall was already built, and the applicant did not specify how the alleged changes would affect its use or enjoyment of the land. The court held that the applicant did not meet the threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown. The balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo, with the wall remaining in place until the suit is determined. Consequently, the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 7th August 2014 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE NO. 205 OF 2014
SAAB ENTERPRISES LTD...............................................................PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
PETERSON MAINA........................................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The notice of motion dated 7th August 2014 brought by the plaintiff/applicant seeks the Court to grant, “an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent whether by himself, his servants or agents from developing, dealing or otherwise disposing of the property known as sub-division number 1865 (original number 1486/69 Section II Main Land North) pending the determination of the suit. He also prayed that the OCS Bamburi Police Station to maintain peace and order during adherence and compliance of the above orders and costs of the application be catered for”.
2. The application is premised on the grounds inter – alia that the applicant purchased the suit property. When it presented their papers for registration, they discovered that the respondent was putting up a perimeter wall which if allowed to continue will cause the applicant immense lose and damage. This is because the defendants' development is going to change the nature and topography of the suit property. The motion is supported further by the affidavit of Swaleh A. Bayaber. The affidavit annexed documents evidencing purchase. In paragraph 5, he deposes that they noticed the defendant deposited building materials on the suit property and started construction of a perimeter wall encroaching on their property. He annexed pictures of the said wall. The deponent stated that he attempted to contact the defendant to discuss the matter for amicable settlement which calls were ignored. Lastly he deposed that this development was going to change the nature of the suit property since the applicant intends to use it in a totally different manner.
3. The respondent vide his replying affidavit filed on 27th August 2014 deposed that he bought his property long before the applicant bought the adjacent plot. He deposed that on his plot, he has constructed the house and the wall. The respondent continued that to the best of his knowledge, there is a road between the two plots therefore he cannot be accused of encroachment. The respondent deposed further that the seller had been restrained from selling the suit property hence the sale to the applicant was by itself done in contempt of Court to defeat justice. He also denied that the construction of the wall will change the nature of the suit property and urged the Court to dismiss the application.
4. The parties thereafter filed written submissions which I have read and considered. To begin with the prayers sought do not agree with the facts laid in support thereof. There is no evidence brought forward of the respondent's intent to “to develop, alienate or other wise dispose of the suit property known as sub-division No 1865”. On this account only, this application should fail. The applicant deposed that the perimeter wall has encroached on its plot. There was no attempt to establish where the boundaries of the two plots are. From the photographs annexed, the wall is already completely built. For this Court to give an order for demolition, there is need to adduce evidence to prove the alleged encroachment. The balance of convenience in this instance, tilts in favour of having the wall remaining in place until the suit is determined.
5. The applicant also feared the defendant's development would change the topography of his suit property thus causing them immense damage to restore it. The respondent on his part deposed that he bought his land earlier and has put up a house and a perimeter wall. In the photographs annexed by the applicant, it is clear the defendant has a complete house on his plot. The applicant bought this plot knowing the existence of the respondent on the adjacent plot and his house. The building of a wall cannot in ordinary cause of business change the topography of the land. The applicant did not specify what the nature of change was and how it would interfere with its user or enjoyment of the suit land. Neither did it say what he would use the land for which the wall blocks him from doing.
6. In conclusion, it is my finding that the present application does not meet any of the principles set out in the case of Giella vs Cassman Brown. The same lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Ruling dated and delivered at Mombasa this 18th day of September, 2015.
…...........................................
A. OMOLLO
JUDGE