[2006] KEHC 3040 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to enforce the statutory provisions cited, as these are enforced by various arms of government and not by private individuals unless their own rights are directly affected. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how the construction of the access road by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 3040 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Samuel M. Wahome, Peter K. Mbugua, Silas E. Njeru (suing as officials of Clayworks Welfare Association – Kasarani and on behalf of themselves & members of the said association); Defendant: Harris Gigi E.A. Ltd; Defendant: Clayworks Ltd; Defendant: Claycity Developers Ltd; Defendant: District Officer, Kasarani Division
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 109 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Locus Standi, Trespass to Land, Quiet Enjoyment of Property
- 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 M. Wahome, Peter K. Mbugua, Silas E. Njeru (suing as officials of Clayworks Welfare Association – Kasarani and on behalf of themselves & members of the said association)
Plaintiff
Harris Gigi E.A. Ltd
Defendant
Clayworks Ltd
Defendant
Claycity Developers Ltd
Defendant
District Officer, Kasarani Division
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to enforce statutory provisions relating to land use and access roads.
- 2 Whether the defendants' construction of an access road amounts to trespass or interferes with the plaintiffs' peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their property.
- 3 Whether the court should grant a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from constructing the access road.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to enforce the statutory provisions cited, as these are enforced by various arms of government and not by private individuals unless their own rights are directly affected. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how the construction of the access road by the defendants on their own property constituted trespass or interfered with the plaintiffs' peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their property. The court held that it has no jurisdiction to restrain an individual from constructing a road of access on their own land unless such construction amounts to trespass or contravenes statutory provisions in a manner that directly infringes the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicant's application for a temporary injunction is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 109 of 2006
SAMUEL M. WAHOME
PETER K. MBUGUA
SILAS E. NJERU
(SUING AS CHAIRMAN, SECRETARY & TREASURER RESPECTIVELY OF CLAYWORKS WELFARE ASSOCIATION – KASARANI AND ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES & MEMBES OF THE SAID ASSOCIATION……….……………………………………………………PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
HARRIS GIGI E.A. LTD………………...........................................………………………….1ST DEFENDANT
CLAYWORKS LTD…….....................................……….……………………………………2ND DEFENDANT
CLAYCITY DEVELOPERS LTD…........................................……………………….……..3RD DEFENDANT
DISTRICT OFFICER, KASARANI DIVISION………............................................……….4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of that parcel of land known as LR NO.54/34 while the defendants are the registered proprietors of that parcel of land known as LR NO. 54/32.
The defendants intend to construct a road of access to their property. The plaintiffs aver that this could be in contravention of various statutory provisions of the various Acts of Parliament that is to say:
i) Lakes & Rivers Act Cap 409 Laws of Kenya
ii) Electric Supply Lines Act Cap 315 Laws of Kenya
iii) Water Act Cap 372 Laws of Kenya
iv) Government Lands Act Cap 280 Laws of Kenya
v) Registration of Titles Act Cap 281 Laws of Kenya
vi) Land titles Act Cap 282 Laws of Kenya
vii) Land Consolidation Act Cap 283 Laws of Kenya
viii) Way Leaves Act Cap 292 Laws of Kenya
ix) Survey Act Cap 299 Laws of Kenya
x) Local Government Act Cap 265 Laws of Kenya
xi) Land Planning Act Cap 303 Laws of Kenya
xii) Housing Act Cap 117 Laws of Kenya
xiii) Public Order Act Cap 56 Laws of Kenya
xiv) The constitution among other several Act
The plaintiff avers that he is apprehensive the defendants actions are tantamount to depriving the plaintiffs the rights of peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their property and those provided by common law, that in the absence of the defendants want of compliance with the statutory and legal requirements their actions would amount to trespass upon the plaintiff’s property LR NO. 54/32.
Simultaneously with the plaint the plaintiff brought this application under Certificate of Urgency seeking temporary injunctive orders to restrain the defendants from continuing to carry out further works on the said access road to their premises. The application is supported by sworn affidavit of the applicant in which he avers on similar facts as those contained in the plaint.
In the first place the various Acts of Parliament are enforced by various arms of the Government and the plaintiffs lack locus standi to enforce them. Secondly as the applicant avers that the respondents are constructing road of access to their property known as LR NO.54/32, the applicant has not shown how they have trespassed or how the respondents have prevented them from peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their property LR NO. 54/34.
The court has no jurisdiction to restrain an individual from constructing a road of access unless by so doing he trespasses on another persons private or contravenes any provisions of any Act of Parliament.
For the above reason, the applicant’s application is dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 8th day of March 2006.
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE