[2017] KEELC 2620 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2620 (KLR)

The court found that the Petitioner had established a prima facie case that its constitutional rights to property and protection from harassment were threatened by the actions of the Respondents. The Respondents failed to respond or justify their conduct. In the interest of justice, and to prevent further potential...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 2620 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Sigma Phi Investments Limited; Respondent: Inspector General of the National Police Service; Respondent: Deputy Inspector General of the Administration Police Service
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 18 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders
Outcome
Application for conservatory orders granted.
Judges
AK Bor
Legal Topics
Conservatory Orders, Right to Property, Police Powers, Harassment and Intimidation, Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Constitutional Law Conservatory Orders Right to Property Police Powers Harassment and Intimidation Ownership Disputes

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sigma Phi Investments Limited

Applicant

Inspector General of the National Police Service

Respondent

Deputy Inspector General of the Administration Police Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders

  1. 1 Whether the actions of the Respondents amounted to a violation of the Petitioner's constitutional rights to property and protection from harassment.
  2. 2 Whether the Petitioner is entitled to conservatory orders restraining the Respondents from interfering with its use and development of the Suit Property.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents should be compelled to disclose the identity of the complainant and the nature of the complaint regarding the Suit Property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Petitioner had established a prima facie case that its constitutional rights to property and protection from harassment were threatened by the actions of the Respondents. The Respondents failed to respond or justify their conduct. In the interest of justice, and to prevent further potential violation of the Petitioner's rights, the court granted the conservatory orders sought in prayers 4, 5, and 6 of the application dated 4th May 2017, restraining the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioner's use and development of the Suit Property and compelling disclosure of the complainant's identity and complaint.

Court Disposition

Application for conservatory orders granted.

Orders

  • Respondents, their officers, agents, servants or employees are restrained from threatening, intimidating, harassing, interfering, undermining, restricting and disturbing the Petitioner's quiet and peaceful use, ownership, possession, development and construction of L. R. No.209/11434 pending hearing and...
  • Respondents are ordered to disclose to the Petitioner and the court the full names of the complainant and the nature of their complaint over the Suit Property within 30 days.