[2004] KEHC 1409 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered owner of LR 9730/5 and that there was no evidence of competing ownership claims. The defendants, having led a large group onto the land and caused destruction, had no lawful right to do so. The plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case and risk of irreparable harm...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1409 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Shadrack Mutia Muiu; Defendant: Prof. K. Kibwana; Defendant: Kalembe Ndile; Defendant: Alois Muia; Defendant: Nicodemus Mutuku Ngalama
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 46 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunction granted ex parte in favour of the plaintiff.
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Trespass to Land, Ownership Disputes, Irreparable Harm
- 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
Shadrack Mutia Muiu
Plaintiff
Prof. K. Kibwana
Defendant
Kalembe Ndile
Defendant
Alois Muia
Defendant
Nicodemus Mutuku Ngalama
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with LR 9730/5.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has established ownership and risk of irreparable harm justifying injunctive relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered owner of LR 9730/5 and that there was no evidence of competing ownership claims. The defendants, having led a large group onto the land and caused destruction, had no lawful right to do so. The plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case and risk of irreparable harm if the invasion recurred. The absence of any response or evidence from the defendants further strengthened the plaintiff's case. Applying the principles for granting interlocutory injunctions, the court held that it was proper to restrain the defendants from interfering with the land until the suit is heard and determined.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunction granted ex parte in favour of the plaintiff.
Orders
- An order of injunction is issued restraining the defendants/respondents, their agents or servants from entering, trespassing, destroying the fence, vegetation, or trees of the plaintiff/applicant, inciting members of the public, or in any way interfering with LR 9730/5 until the suit is heard and determined.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
HIGH COURT AT MACHAKOS CIVIL CASE NO. 46 of 2004
SHADRACK MUTIA MUIU…………………………………………….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PROF. K. KIBWANA
KALEMBE NDILE
ALOIS MUIA
NICODEMUS MUTUKU NGALAMA……………………………...DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
The application for determination is the chamber summons dated 28. 4.2004 in which the applicant seeks orders of injunction to restrain the defendant/respondent, their agents or servants from entering, trespassing or destroying the fence,, vegetation, or trees of the plaintiff/applicant and from further inciting members of public with weapons or in any way interfering with this suit premises known as LR 9730/5 belonging to the applicant and causing violence to the plaintiff till the suit is heard and determined. The grounds upon which the application is brought are found on the face of the application and the application is further supported by the affidavit of Shadrack Mutia Muiu the plaintiff/applicant.
The plaintiff/applicant depones that he is the registered owner of the land parcel LR 9730/5 at Sultan Hamud as evidenced by the title deed annexed as SMM I. It is for 999 years dating from 1955, and was issued in 1981. He has lived on the land since and that the land had no squatters but on 23. 4.2004 the defendants led a group of about 700 people who were armed with pangas and machetes onto the said land who intended to evict him and subdivide the land amongst squatters without any court order. They destroyed his fences, trees and vegetation and created a road on the land. They were only restrained by police and that the defendants threatened to come back. The applicant annexed a newspaper report SMM II. The newspaper report was in relation to the invasion of the land and defendants promised not to rest till they settled squatters in their areas. Plaintiff prays that the respondents be restrained from repeating the same. Mr. Nyamu came on record as having conduct of the case on behalf of the respondents. He was served for hearing on 11. 6.2004 but failed to attend court. The application was adjourned to 23. 6.2004 for hearing. Somebody held brief for Mr. Nyamu but he had no audience as no court adjournment fees which was ordered on 18. 5.2004 had not been paid. No papers had been filed by respondents. The matter proceeded ex parte.
The applicant has shown that he is the registered owner of the land parcel No. LR 9730/5. There is no evidence that part of it or all of it belongs to anybody else other than the applicant. There is evidence even from the newspapers that there was invasion of the suit land by the defendants with a big crowd who were referred to as squatters who caused chaos and damage to the said land. This is private land and defendants have not shown that they had any right to invade it with the group of squatters. If such invasion is repeated the applicant is bound to suffer irreparable loss and having shown that applicant is the owner of the land, it is only proper that an order of injunction do issue restraining the defendants/respondents, their agents or servants from interfering with the said land in any way till this matter is heard and determined. Costs to be in the cause.
Dated, read and delivered at Machakos this 13th day of July 2004.
R. V. WENDOH
JUDGE