[2011] KEHC 1776 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie case as they did not provide documentary evidence of ownership or lawful interest in the suit property. Furthermore, the property referenced in the judicial review application differed from the property subject to the interlocutory injunction...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1776 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Kariru; Applicant: John Kinyua; Respondent: Mbogoini Land Dispute Tribunal; Respondent: Grace Wamuruana Mboi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 158 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SP Ouko
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Ownership Disputes, Judicial Review, Prima Facie Case
- 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
Stephen Kariru
Applicant
John Kinyua
Applicant
Mbogoini Land Dispute Tribunal
Respondent
Grace Wamuruana Mboi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering with the suit property.
- 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated lawful ownership or interest in the suit property sufficient to justify injunctive relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie case as they did not provide documentary evidence of ownership or lawful interest in the suit property. Furthermore, the property referenced in the judicial review application differed from the property subject to the interlocutory injunction application, and the supporting documents did not establish a nexus to the suit property. Consequently, the applicants did not meet the threshold for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, and the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for interlocutory injunction is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2008
STEPHEN KARIRU………………...........................…….......................……1ST APPLICANT
JOHN KINYUA…………………….............................………………………2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
MBOGOINI LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL ………….................................…1ST RESPONDENT
GRACE WAMURUANA MBOI……………..................................…………2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicants, Stephen Kabiru and John Kinyua brought a chamber summons dated 7th March, 2008 for leave to challenge by Judicial review the decision of Mbogoini Land Dispute Tribunal granting the ownership of a parcel of land known as Kagumo Munyaka Farm to the 2nd respondent. Leave was not, however granted. Instead, the court (Mugo, J) directed that the summons be served for interpartes hearing and in the meantime, the status quo on the suit property be maintained.
The instant application dated 24th March, 2011 has been brought on the basis that the judicial review file No. 158/2008 has gone missing, yet the 2nd respondent, Grace Wamuruana Mboi has destroyed the applicant’s crops growing in the suit property.Pending the tracing, hearing and determination of the judicial review application, the applicant seeks in this application that the 2nd respondent be restrained from, interfering with the suit property described as plot No.38 in Kagochi area.
Despite service upon the 2nd respondent with the application and the hearing notice, she did not respond to the application or attend court when the matter was canvassed. Being an application for interlocutory injunction, the burden is upon the applicants to demonstrate that they have a prima facie case with a probability of success; that an award of damages will not adequately compensate him if the order sought is not granted. However, if the court is in doubt the matter must be decided on a balance of convenience. Have the applicants shown that they have a prima facie case?
The basis of their claim is that the 2nd respondent despite the orders of the maintenance of status quo in the Judicial Review application No. 158 of 2008 has destroyed the applicants crops on plot No.38 in Kagochi area. The applicants have not demonstrated by exhibiting any documentary evidence that they are the registered or lawful owners of the suit property. Secondly, in the Judicial review application, the dispute is in respect of a property known as Kagumo Munyaka Farm. All the annextures to that application have no nexus with the suit property.
For these reasons, the applicants have failed to demonstrate that they have a prima facie case. The application fails and is dismissed.
Dated, Delivered and Signed at Nakuru this 11th day of April, 2011.
W. OUKO
JUDGE