[2020] KEELC 564 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 564 (KLR)

The court found that the parcels of land for which the Applicants sought injunctive relief were not part of the subject matter litigated between the Plaintiffs and Defendants, nor were they affected by the judgment of 2nd March, 2018. The Applicants had previously been denied joinder as interested parties, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 564 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Samuel Rono & 32 Others; Defendant: Joel Komen & 33 Others; Applicant: David Cheboi; Applicant: Grace Kipkering; Applicant: John M. Korir; Applicant: Musa Korir; Applicant: David Cheptoo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 599 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
SM Kibunja
Legal Topics
Injunction Pending Appeal, Joinder of Parties, Eviction Orders, Stay of Execution
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunction Pending Appeal Joinder of Parties Eviction Orders Stay of Execution

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Rono & 32 Others

Plaintiff

Joel Komen & 33 Others

Defendant

David Cheboi

Applicant

Grace Kipkering

Applicant

John M. Korir

Applicant

Musa Korir

Applicant

David Cheptoo

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants have established a reasonable case for issuance of a temporary injunction order pending the intended appeal.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the parcels of land for which the Applicants sought injunctive relief were not part of the subject matter litigated between the Plaintiffs and Defendants, nor were they affected by the judgment of 2nd March, 2018. The Applicants had previously been denied joinder as interested parties, and the review of the judgment had not been appealed by the Defendants. As such, there was no basis for granting the injunction sought. The court further held that, while it had jurisdiction to entertain applications for injunction pending appeal, the Applicants had failed to demonstrate entitlement to the orders sought. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Applicants' Motion dated 19th June, 2020 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs.