[2017] KEELC 561 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The main basis was the irregularity and secrecy in the transfer of the suit land from the deceased's name to the defendants before a confirmed grant of letters of administration and consent to transfer were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 561 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Shem Okore Ogola (administrator of the estate of Pius Oyieko Ogola, deceased); Defendant: Rispa Arum Akumu; Defendant: Tom Mboya Ayugi; Defendant: Jared Nyanguti; Defendant: Mifely Enterprises; Defendant: Land Registrar, Nyando
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 350 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Hearing and Determination of the Suit
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Succession Disputes, Transfer of Land, Administration of Estates
- 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
Shem Okore Ogola (administrator of the estate of Pius Oyieko Ogola, deceased)
Plaintiff
Rispa Arum Akumu
Defendant
Tom Mboya Ayugi
Defendant
Jared Nyanguti
Defendant
Mifely Enterprises
Defendant
Land Registrar, Nyando
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Hearing and Determination of the Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction.
- 2 Whether the transfer of the suit land was irregular for lack of a confirmed grant and consent from the Land Control Board.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The main basis was the irregularity and secrecy in the transfer of the suit land from the deceased's name to the defendants before a confirmed grant of letters of administration and consent to transfer were obtained. The court noted that while the 1st defendant provided a letter of consent for one transfer, there was no evidence of a confirmed grant at the time of the transfers. The court also observed that the plaintiff had filed summons for revocation or annulment of grant in the succession court, which was still pending. Given the frequency of transfers and the risk of the...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction allowed.
Orders
- Defendants are restrained from selling, transferring, negotiating for sale, abetting the sale, or registering the transfer of land title No. Kisumu/West Koguta/3023 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- Costs of the application to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
58 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KISUMU
ELC CASE NO.350 OF 2016
SHEM OKORE OGOLA (Suing as the administrator of the estate of
PIUS OYIEKO OGOLA (DECEASED) ......................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RISPA ARUM AKUMU .....................................................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
TOM MBOYA AYUGI……..……………………………………………………………….2ND DEFENDANT
JARED NYANGUTI ……….……………………………………………………………....3RD DEFENDANT
MIFELY ENTERPRISES…………………………………………………………………..4TH DEFENDANT
LAND REGISTRAR, NYANDO……………………………………………………………5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Shem Okore Agola,suing as the administrator of the estate of Pius Oyieko Agola, deceased, hereinafter refered to as the Plaintiff, seeks vide notice of motion dated 19th December 2016 to have Risper Arum Akumu, Tom Mboya Ayugi, Jared Nyaguti , Mifely Enterprises and Land Registrar, Nyando, the 1st to 5th Defendants respectively, restrained from “selling, transferring, negotiation for sale, abetting the sale or transferring or registering the transfer of land title No.Kisumu/West Koguta/3023” pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The application is based on the (5) grounds on its face summarized asfollows;
i)That the Defendants have already transacted on the said land, and are currently attempting to fence it and to dispose it to third parties.
ii)That a caution filed by the Plaintiff as a beneficial owner was removed secretly through collusion of the Defendants.
iii) That no grant of administration had been obtained before the land was transferred from the deceased’s name.
iv)That no consent to transfer was obtained from the Land Control Board before the transfer.
v)That the transactions involving the suit land have been illegal and the Plaintiff is apprehensive that adverse dealings on the land will take it out of his reach.
The application is also supported by the affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff on the 19th December 2016 more or less deponing to the matters set out in the five grounds.
2. The notice of motion is opposed by the 1st and 3rd Defendants through their replying affidavit sworn on the 10th May 2017 and 15th July 2017 respectively whose deposition is summarized herein below;
i) That the suit land was initially registered in the name of Pius Oyieko Agola who was a brother in-law to the 1st Defendant and step brother to the Plaintiff.
ii) That all family members consented to the 1st Defendant taking letters of administration in respect of Pius Oyieko Agola’s estate after which the land was transmitted to her.
iii) That the Plaintiff offered the family to purchase the land but his offer was declined. That thereafter the 2nd Defendant’s offer was accepted by the family and all the procedures followed in the transactions.
iv) That the 3rd Defendant purchased the land procedurally from the 2nd Defendant who had obtained title from the 1st Defendant.
v) That the 3rd Defendant is the director to the 4th Defendant who is currently the registered proprietor of the land.
3. The application came up for hearing on the 2nd October 2017 when M/S Nyakalu and Mr. Mboya for the Plaintiff and Defendants respectively, made the oral submissions.
4. The following are the issues for the court’s determination;
a) Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success for temporary injunction to issue at this stage.
b) Who pays the costs.
5. The court has carefully considered the grounds on the notice of motion, the affidavit evidence, the submissions by both counsel and come to the following findings;
a) That the Plaintiff has filed this suit on the strength of the Limited Grant of letter of Administration Ad litem issued in Nyando S.R.M. Succession cause No.103 of 2016 on the 14th December 2016.
b) That the Plaintiff’s main basis of challenging the transactions relating to the suit land is the irregularity and secrecy in the transfer of title from the name of Pius Oyieko Agola, the deceased, to the 1st Defendant and thereafter to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants before a confirmed Grant of letters of administration and consent to transfer were obtained.
c) That the 1st Defendant has annexed a copy of the letter of consent dated 2nd June 2015 allowing the transfer from her to the 2nd Defendant. That the 1st Defendant has also annexed the transfer documents, certificate of official searches among others. That whereas the documents annexed puts to rest the question of letter of consent to transfer, the question on whether there was a confirmed grant at the time of transfer remains unanswered as none was availed to the court.
d) That the court takes notice that the Plaintiff has filed summons for revocation or annulment of grant dated 25th June 2014 in Kisumu H.C. Succession Cause No.103 of 2014, which appear to be pending in the succession court. That in case it is true that the 1st Defendant had not obtained a confirmed grant when she transferred the suit land to the 2nd Defendant, then she is likely to have contravened the provision of Section 45, 55 (1) and 71 of the Law of Succession Act chapter 160 of the Laws of Kenya.
e) That the apprehension expressed by the Plaintiff cannot be ignored noting the frequency of the transfers so far done on the title to the suit land and the court finds that he has made a case for temporary injunction.
6. That from the foregoing, the court finds merit on the Plaintiff’s notice of motion dated 19th December 2016 which is hereby allowed in terms of prayer 3 with costs in the cause.
Orders accordingly.
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND – JUDGE
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
In presence of;
Plaintiff Absent
Defendants Absent
Counsel Mr. Odeny for Okore for Plaintiff
Mr. Mboya for the Defendants
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND – JUDGE
13/12/2017
13/12/2017
S.M. Kibunja Judge
Joan/Oyugi court assistants
Parties absent
Mr. Odeny for Okore for Plaintiff
Mr. Mboya for the Defendant.
Court: The ruling dated and delivered in open court in presence of Mr. Odeny for Okore for the Plaintiff and Mr. Mboya for the Defendants.
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND – JUDGE
13/12/2017