[2017] KEELC 1916 (KLR)
Given that the applications were unopposed and the applicant presented evidence of lawful allocation and subsequent fraudulent allocation to other parties, the court found a prima facie case had been established. The absence of opposition from the respondents, including express non-opposition from the first to fifth...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1916 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Saima Jepkemboi; Respondent: The National Lands Commission; Respondent: The Secretary Lands Ministry of Lands & Physical Planning; Respondent: The Chief Lands Registrar; Respondent: The Director Survey of Kenya; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Weston Kipkosgei Lagat; Respondent: Faith Limo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 23 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
- Outcome
- Applications allowed; injunctive orders and police assistance granted as per specified prayers.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Land Allocation Disputes, Fraudulent Allocation, Prima Facie Case
- 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
Saima Jepkemboi
Applicant
The National Lands Commission
Respondent
The Secretary Lands Ministry of Lands & Physical Planning
Respondent
The Chief Lands Registrar
Respondent
The Director Survey of Kenya
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Weston Kipkosgei Lagat
Respondent
Faith Limo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to injunctive orders restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit property.
- 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case for the grant of interlocutory injunction.
- 3 Whether the allocation of the suit property to the sixth and seventh respondents was fraudulent.
Ratio Decidendi
Given that the applications were unopposed and the applicant presented evidence of lawful allocation and subsequent fraudulent allocation to other parties, the court found a prima facie case had been established. The absence of opposition from the respondents, including express non-opposition from the first to fifth respondents and no appearance by the sixth and seventh, further supported the grant of the injunctive relief sought. The court therefore allowed the applicant's notices of motion in terms of the specified prayers, granting interlocutory injunctive orders and police assistance as requested.
Court Disposition
Applications allowed; injunctive orders and police assistance granted as per specified prayers.
Orders
- The applicant's notice of motion dated 10th January 2017 is allowed in terms of prayers three, four, five, and six.
- The applicant's notice of motion dated 26th January 2017 is allowed in terms of prayers three, four, six, and nine.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT OF KENYA
AT MILIMANI
ELC CASE NO. 23 OF 2017
SAIMA JEPKEMBOI …………………….…….....PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
=VERSUS=
THE NATIONAL LANDS COMMISSION..1ST DEFENDNT/RESPONDENT
THE SECRETARY LANDS MINISTRY OF LANDS &
PHYSICAL PLANNING………………...2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
THE CHIEF LANDS REGISTRAR…....3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS
THE DIRECTOR SURVEY OF KENYA....4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
THE HON.ATTORNEY GENERAL........5TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS
WESTON KIPKOSGEI LAGAT…...........6TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
FAITH LIMO………………………..........7TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is a ruling in respect of two separate applications filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant. The first one is dated 10th January 2017. This application seeks injunctive orders against the respondents. The applicant contends that she was allocated a plot along Masaba Road near Nyayo Stadium in 1996. This is after she applied for the same and all approvals necessary were granted. A deed plan was duly prepared. She however later learnt that the same plot is being fraudulently allocated to the sixth and seventh respondents.
2. The second application is dated 26th January 2017. It seeks injunctive orders and police assistance. The sixth and seventh respondents who were served by way of substituted service neither entered appearance nor filed a replying affidavit or grounds of opposition to the two applications. Counsel for the first respondents indicated to court on 4th April 2017 that as the first respondent was not adversely affected by the two applications, they did not wish to participate in the same. Counsel for the second, third, fourth and fifth respondents also indicated on 4th April 2017 that he was not opposed to the two applications.
3. From the materials presented by the applicant and given the fact that the applications are not opposed, I find that the applicant has a prima facie case. I therefore allow the applicant’s notice of motion dated 10th January 2017, in terms of prayers three (3), four (4) five (5) and six (6). The notice of motion dated 26th January, 2017 is allowed in terms of prayers three (3), four (4), six (6), and nine (9).
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and delivered at Nairobi on this 21stday of September, 2017.
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of :
Mr Kassim for Plaintiff
Court Assistant: Hilda
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE