[2016] KEELC 616 (KLR)
The court found that the matter had been conclusively settled by a consent judgment, which allocated 15 acres to the applicant and 5 acres to the respondents. Despite the respondents' denial, the court was satisfied, based on the acrimonious history and the applicant's evidence, that the respondents had interfered...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELC 616 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Simatwa Kaptuwai Njamet; Defendant: Geoffrey Kisa Simatwa; Defendant: Linus Simatwa
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 35 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for permanent injunction allowed; costs to the applicant.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Ownership Disputes, Permanent Injunctions, Consent Judgments
- 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
Simatwa Kaptuwai Njamet
Plaintiff
Geoffrey Kisa Simatwa
Defendant
Linus Simatwa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his 15 acres after a consent judgment.
- 2 Whether the respondents have interfered with the applicant's portion contrary to the consent order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the matter had been conclusively settled by a consent judgment, which allocated 15 acres to the applicant and 5 acres to the respondents. Despite the respondents' denial, the court was satisfied, based on the acrimonious history and the applicant's evidence, that the respondents had interfered with the applicant's portion. The court held that the applicant was entitled to seek a permanent injunction to protect his property rights post-judgment, especially since the respondents appeared dissatisfied with the consent allocation. The application for a permanent injunction was therefore meritorious and allowed in terms of the notice of motion, with costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application for permanent injunction allowed; costs to the applicant.
Orders
- A permanent injunction is issued restraining the respondents and their servants from interfering with the applicant's 15 acres as per the consent judgment.
- The costs of the application shall be borne by the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 35 OF 2008
SIMATWA KAPTUWAI NJAMET………………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GEOFFREY KISA SIMATWA…..……........………..1ST DEFENDANT
LINUS SIMATWA…………………………………2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant is the father of the two respondents. The applicant had sued the respondents seeking a declaration that he was the sole owner of LR. No. Kiboroa/Kipsagam/34 and a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the same.
2. On 20/5/2014 the applicant and the respondent compromised the suit through a consent in which the applicant gave the respondents five acres and he remained with fifteen acres.
Surveyors were sent to the ground and excised the five acres for the respondents.
3. The respondents briefly confined themselves to the five acres but in February, 2016, they ploughed a portion of the land which had been retained by the applicant. When the applicant asked them why they were doing this, they became violent and threatened to dispossess him of his entire portion. This is what prompted the applicant to come to court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents and or their servants from interfering with his 15 acres.
4. The respondents have opposed the applicant’s application through replying affidavit sworn on 22/6/2016. They deny that they have cultivated any portion of the applicant’s land. They allege that contrary to the applicant’s allegations, it is the applicant who is out to disposses them even the five acres which they were given.
5. I have carefully considered the applicant’s application as well as the opposition to the same by the respondents. To begin with, this is a concluded matter. A consent has already been recorded settling the dispute. The consent has already been adopted as judgment of the court. What the applicant is simply asking the court is protection by way of injunction from the respondents’ actions. Though the respondents are denying that they have ploughed part of the applicant’s land, I have no doubt that they have interfered with the applicant’s portion given the acrimonious history of this matter.
6. This is not an application where the issue of whether the applicant has disclosed a prima facie case is to be considered. The case is already concluded. The applicant is at liberty to come to court for injunction orders to protect his property even after judgment. He had prayed for a permanent injunction in his plaint. As the respondents seem not to be contented with the five acres which they were given, I find that the applicant is perfectly in order to seek a permanent injunction against the respondent. I therefore find that the applicant’s application is meritorious. The same is allowed in terms of prayer (2) of the notice of motion dated 11/3/2016. The costs of this application shall be borne by the respondents.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 30thday of August, 2016.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
COURT
Ruling signed in court at 2. 42 pm in the absence of parties who were aware of today’s date.
Court Assistant – Isabellah.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
30/8/16