[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Samuel Kipkoech Meto
Applicant
Daniel Ole Sirma
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 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 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAORK
ELC SUIT NO.24 OF 2020
SAMUEL KIPKOECH METO.........APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DANIEL OLE SIRMA...............RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
RULING
The Notice of Motion dated 4/9/2020 before this court is seeking the following Orders: -
1. Spent.
2. That pending the hearing and determination of this Application/Suit the honourable court be pleased to issue 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 his ownership by purchase, equal use and enjoyment of 7. 1 hectares of CIS Mara/Olulunga/5701.
3. That pending the hearing and determination of this Application/Suit the Honourable court be pleased to issue 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.
4. That the Honourable court be pleased on the first instance to order the Defendant to commence and conclude the land transfer process in favour of the Plaintiff of 7. 1 hectares of CIS Mara/Olulunga/5701 through the Olulunga Land Control Board and the Land Registrar Office in Narok.
5. That costs of this application be provided for.
The Application is premised on the grounds on the face of the Application and the same is Supported by the Affidavit of the Applicant sworn on even date in which he contends that he purchased the suit land measuring 7. 1 hectares from the Respondent vide several Sale Agreements dated 5/3/1997,20/6/1999 and 11/4/2008 respectively. That on several occasions he had requested the Respondent to transfer the property to him to no avail. That on 15/6/2010 the suit land was surveyed and subdivided and a Mutation Certificate Number 288265 registered on 11/7/2012. That the Applicant is likely to suffer loss of investments if the Orders sought are not granted.
The Application was opposed by the Replying Affidavit of Daniel Ole Sirma, the Respondent herein sworn on 2/12/2020 in which he contends that he is the registered owner of the suit land before it was subdivided into ten portions being CIS MARA/OLULUNGA/13816,13817,13818,13819,13820,13821,13822,13823,13824 AND 13825 and that he had submitted his title to a close friend who might have sold it to a different party.
I have analysed the application before me, the Replying Affidavit and the Submissions. The issue for determination now is whether the Applicant is entitled to the Orders of injunction.
Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted under Order 40, rule 1 provides that ‘Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise— (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; or (b) that the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property in circumstances affording reasonable probability that the plaintiff will or may be obstructed or delayed in the execution of any decree that may be passed against the defendant in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal, or disposition of the property as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further orders’.
In my view, and in the best interest of justice, both parties need to be accorded time in court to ventilate their issues. I hereby allow application dated 4/9/2020 in terms of prayer number 2 and 3. Costs to be in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAROK ON THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
MOHAMMED N. KULLOW
JUDGE
10/6/2021
In the presence of:
CA:Chuma
Parties and advocates absent
MOHAMMED N. KULLOW
JUDGE
10/6/2021