[2016] KEELC 100 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case as the registered owner of Plot Number 510 and that the defendants had invaded and occupied the land without lawful justification. The defendants, despite being properly served, failed to appear or contest the application. The court was satisfied...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELC 100 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Samsora Dima; Defendant: Halkano Sora Dima; Defendant: Abdub Sora Dima
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 219 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Trespass, Irreparable Harm
- 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
Samsora Dima
Plaintiff
Halkano Sora Dima
Defendant
Abdub Sora Dima
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of a temporary injunction.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case as the registered owner of Plot Number 510 and that the defendants had invaded and occupied the land without lawful justification. The defendants, despite being properly served, failed to appear or contest the application. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, as continued occupation by the defendants deprived him of the use of his property. The balance of convenience also favoured the plaintiff, who stood to lose the use and enjoyment of his land. Consequently, the court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from...
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted
Orders
- Temporary injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their agents, servants, assigns or employees or anyone acting at their behest from interfering with Plot Number 510 situated in Butie Ward in Moyale, Marsabit County pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
E&L CASE NO 219 OF 2016
SAMSORA DIMA..................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HALKANO SORA DIMA...........1ST DEFENDANT
ABDUB SORA DIMA................2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. This application is dated 7th November, 2016 and seeks orders:-
1. THATthis Honourable Court be pleased to certify this application as extremely urgent, service to be dispensed with and the same be heard ex-parte in the first instance.
2. THATthis Honourable Court be pleased to issue temporary orders of injunction restraining the 1st & 2nd Defendants, their agents, servants assigns or employees or anyone acting at their behest from whatsoever interfering with PLOT NUMBER 510 pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-parties.
3. THATthis Honourable Court be pleased to issue further orders to meet the end of justice.
4. THATthe costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of SAM SORA DIMA, the Plaintiff, and has the following grounds: -
a. That the Plaintiff is the registered owner of PLOT NUMBER 510.
b. That the 1st & 2nd Defendants illegally invaded and occupied the Plaintiff's land since 13/10/2016 and been using the land for his use (sic) thus rendering the Plaintiff destitute.
c. That if the orders sought herein are not granted the Plaintiff/Applicant will suffer irreparable loss and damage.
3. When the application was to be heard interpartes on 29th November, 2016, the Plaintiff demonstrated to Court that it had been properly served upon the Defendants who were not in Court to participate in the interpartes proceedings.
4. In the circumstances the application is allowed in terms of prayer 2.
5. The effect of granting prayer 2 is that it stands confirmed and this Court issues temporary orders of injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their agents, servants, assigns or employees or anyone acting at their behest from whatsoever interfering with PLOT NUMBER 510 situated in Butie Ward in Moyale, Marsabit County pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
6. Costs shall be in the cause.
7. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF: -
C.A :
Daniel /James
Parties not in Court
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE