[2018] KEELC 3908 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case by demonstrating registered ownership of the Suit Property through documentary evidence, including a court decree and certificate of lease. The Defendant failed to challenge the application substantively, and its preliminary objection was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3908 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Samuel Kanogo Ritho; Plaintiff: Sarim Holdings Limited; Defendant: Liscom Computers and Accessories Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 120 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Temporary injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiffs; costs awarded to the Plaintiffs.
- Judges
- AK Bor
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Ownership Disputes, Land Title, Trusts in Land, Registration of Titles
- 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
Samuel Kanogo Ritho
Plaintiff
Sarim Holdings Limited
Plaintiff
Liscom Computers and Accessories Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for grant of a temporary injunction against the Defendant.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiffs are the registered owners of the Suit Property and entitled to protection from interference by the Defendant.
- 3 Whether the Defendant has any legal right or interest in the Suit Property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case by demonstrating registered ownership of the Suit Property through documentary evidence, including a court decree and certificate of lease. The Defendant failed to challenge the application substantively, and its preliminary objection was dismissed. Given the risk of irreparable harm and the need to preserve the status quo, the court granted the temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from dealing with the Suit Property pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Court Disposition
Temporary injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiffs; costs awarded to the Plaintiffs.
Orders
- The Defendant, its agents or servants are restrained from trespassing, dealing, developing, constructing, entering, subdividing, leasing, charging, transferring, selling or in any manner dealing with Nairobi Block 94/3 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- The Plaintiffs are awarded the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAIROBI
ELC. CASE NO. 120 OF 2017
SAMUEL KANOGO RITHO.................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
SARIM HOLDINGS LIMITED............................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LISCOM COMPUTERS AND ACCESSORIES LIMITED...DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiffs seeks a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendant or its agents from trespassing, dealing, developing, constructing, entering, subdividing, leasing, charging, transferring, selling or in any manner dealing with the land known as Nairobi Block 94/3 (“the Suit Property”) pending hearing and determination of this suit.
The Plaintiff’s application dated 20/2/2017 is supported by the affidavit of Geoffrey Avugwi Ritho. It is based on the grounds that the Plaintiffs are the registered owners of the Suit Property and have never transferred it. The 1st Plaintiff acquired the Suit Property pursuant to the court’s judgement in HCCC No. 1048 of 1996 following which the Deputy Registrar executed a transfer in a favour of the Plaintiff on 21/12/2005. The Plaintiff disputes the Defendant’s claim that it acquired the Suit Property from Sam Asiligwa Luseno. The 1st Plaintiff granted Geoffrey Avugwi Ritho the general power of attorney to sue on his behalf.
The Plaintiff produced a copy of the plaint filed in HCCC No. 1048 of 1996 together with the copy of the decree vide which a declaratory judgement was entered in favour of the 1st Plaintiff, that the Defendant held L.R. No. Nairobi Block 93/3 in trust for the 1st Plaintiff; and directing the Defendant to execute the transfer documents failing which the Deputy Registrar of the High Court would execute the transfer. A copy of the transfer of lease executed by the Deputy Registrar was also annexed together with a copy of the certificate of lease issued to the Plaintiffs on 30/12/2005.
The Defendant did not file any response to the application for injunction. It instead gave notice that it would raise a preliminary objection. The objection was argued and dismissed by the court.
The court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have a prima facie case against the Defendant with a probability of success. It is necessary to restrain the Defendants from dealing with the Suit Property pending hearing and determination of the suit. Prayer 3 of the application dated 20/2/2017 is allowed. The Plaintiffs are awarded the costs of this application.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 21st day of February 2018.
K. BOR
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Mr. Kwesiga holding brief for Mr. Kiiru for the Plaintiffs
Mr. Kigata holding brief for Mr. Oduk for the Defendant
Mr. V. Owuor- Court Assistant