[2021] KEELC 1533 (KLR)
The court declined to grant the injunctive orders sought by the applicant because the respondents are in occupation of the land and the main relief sought in the plaint is eviction. Granting the injunction at this interlocutory stage would effectively amount to granting the substantive relief before the suit is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 1533 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Sweetland Holdings Limited; Defendant: Vector Projects Limited; Defendant: Illumine International Limited; Defendant: Chris Mutura Karumba T/A Solutions Intel & Global Consultants
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E310 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Eviction, Trespass, Possession Disputes
- 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
Sweetland Holdings Limited
Plaintiff
Vector Projects Limited
Defendant
Illumine International Limited
Defendant
Chris Mutura Karumba T/A Solutions Intel & Global Consultants
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to injunctive orders restraining the respondents from interfering with Parcel No. NAIROBI/BLOCK 72/2936 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether granting the injunction would amount to granting a major relief sought in the main suit before full hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant the injunctive orders sought by the applicant because the respondents are in occupation of the land and the main relief sought in the plaint is eviction. Granting the injunction at this interlocutory stage would effectively amount to granting the substantive relief before the suit is heard and determined on its merits. The court emphasized that even where an application is unopposed, it must still assess whether the orders sought are merited. In this case, the injunctive relief would preempt the main issue in dispute and is therefore inappropriate at this stage. The application was dismissed to preserve the integrity of the trial process and ensure that the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 23.8.2021 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
ELC. CASE NO. E310 OF 2021
SWEETLAND HOLDINGS LIMITED .........................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
VECTOR PROJECTS LIMITED........................................................1ST DEFENDANT
ILLUMINE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED......................................2ND DEFENDANT
CHRIS MUTURA KARUMBA
T/A SOLUTIONS INTEL & GLOBAL CONSULTANTS..............3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Before me is an application dated 23. 8.2021 seeking injunctive orders against the Respondents restraining the latter from trespassing, wasting, constructing or, demolishing, alienating or otherwise interfering or dealing with the Parcel No. NAIROBI/BLOCK 72/2936 – LANGATA MALL pending the hearing of the application and the suit.
2. When the application came up for interpartes hearing, Counsel for the Applicant informed the court that he had effected service. However, no responses have been filed by the
Respondents. The application is therefore unopposed.
3. In the Supreme Court of Kenya case of Tullow Oil PLC & 3 Others vs. Permanent Secretary Ministry of Energy and 15 Others (2020) eKLR, the court stated that:
“In other circumstances, depending on the nature, where an application is unopposed, and the court sees merit in it, then it should be granted without much ado”
4. Thus the court has a duty to consider if an application has merits even if it is unopposed. In the present case the Applicant is seeking injunctive orders against the Respondent in the application while in the plaint, he is seeking for their eviction. In their submission, the applicant avers that.
“The Respondents despite several reminders and demands have blatantly refused to comply and or vacate the suit premises. They continue to illegally occupy/or trespass on the same as there is no formal engagement with the landlord and as such they are not remitting any Rent.”
5. It is crystal clear that the orders sought by the Applicant in their application are not in tandem with the pleadings. The Respondents are in occupation of the land hence granting the injunction orders at this stage would amount to issuance of a major relief sought in the plaint.
6. In the case of Daniel Atibu Joginda v Ainea Sandanyi Mogara[2015] eKLR,the court state that:
“since the Plaintiff’s suit is for eviction of the Defendant from the said residence, such an injunction will amount to granting a major relief in the suit without the benefit of hearing”
7. Likewise in the present case, I decline to grant the orders sought at this stage of the trial. The application dated 23. 8.2021 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
8. The Plaintiff should hasten to have the main suit prosecuted.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER,2021 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.
LUCY N. MBUGUA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Kaburu for the Plaintiff/Applicant
Court Assistant: Eddel