[2015] KEELC 597 (KLR)

[2015] KEELC 597 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, as they demonstrated possession of the suit properties and alleged fraudulent registration of the land in the defendant's name. The defendant failed to oppose the application or refute the plaintiffs'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELC 597 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Samwel Ojwang Mumbo; Plaintiff: James Kihara; Defendant: James Felix Gitau Githunguri
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 267 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Application for injunction allowed as unopposed.
Judges
MA Silau
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Fraudulent Transfer of Land, Title Registration Dispute
Source Language
en
Land and Property Injunctive Relief Fraudulent Transfer of Land Title Registration Dispute

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samwel Ojwang Mumbo

Plaintiff

James Kihara

Plaintiff

James Felix Gitau Githunguri

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for grant of an interlocutory injunction pending trial.
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours preservation of the suit property pending determination of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, as they demonstrated possession of the suit properties and alleged fraudulent registration of the land in the defendant's name. The defendant failed to oppose the application or refute the plaintiffs' claims. The court held that, although it could not conclusively determine the issue of fraud at this interlocutory stage, the balance of convenience required preservation of the status quo to prevent possible disposition or interference with the land pending the hearing and determination of the suit. Accordingly, the court granted the orders sought to restrain the defendant...

Court Disposition

Application for injunction allowed as unopposed.

Orders

  • The defendant is barred from selling, charging, leasing, or otherwise disposing of land parcels Miti Mingi/Mbaruk/5215 and 5217.
  • An order of inhibition is issued, barring registration of any disposition in the register of land parcels Miti Mingi/Mbaruk/5215 and 5217.