[2021] KEELC 2912 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 2912 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, as he had shown evidence of purchase and risk of loss if the respondent was not restrained. The respondent's admission of subdivision and uncertainty regarding the title further justified the need to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 2912 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Kipkoech Meto; Respondent: Daniel Ole Sirma
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 24 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
interlocutory injunction granted in terms of prayers 2 and 3; costs in the cause
Judges
MN Kullow
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Land Transfer Disputes, Ownership by Purchase
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Land Transfer Disputes Ownership by Purchase

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Kipkoech Meto

Applicant

Daniel Ole Sirma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with the suit land pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order restraining the respondent from harassing or interfering with the applicant's use and enjoyment of the suit land.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, as he had shown evidence of purchase and risk of loss if the respondent was not restrained. The respondent's admission of subdivision and uncertainty regarding the title further justified the need to preserve the status quo. The court held that, in the interest of justice, both parties should be given an opportunity to present their cases fully, and thus granted the orders of injunction as sought in prayers 2 and 3 of the application, restraining the respondent from interfering with the applicant's use and enjoyment of the suit land pending determination of the suit.

Court Disposition

interlocutory injunction granted in terms of prayers 2 and 3; costs in the cause

Orders

  • An order of injunction restraining the defendant by himself or his agents from subdividing, transferring, selling and/or doing any other act that prejudices the plaintiff’s right to ownership by purchase, equal use and enjoyment of 7.1 hectares of CIS Mara/Olulunga/5701 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  • An order restraining the defendant from harassing, threatening and intimidating the plaintiff from peaceful, equal use and enjoyment of the 7.1 hectares of portions of CIS Mara/Olulunga/5701 pending hearing and determination of the suit.