[2022] KEELC 1557 (KLR)
The court found that the issues raised by both parties regarding possession and ownership of the suit land are contested and cannot be resolved at the interlocutory stage. Given that the matter is already set for hearing and in line with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act to ensure expeditious and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 1557 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Teresia Wairimu Kirima (suing on behalf of the Estate of Gerishon Kamau Kirima); Respondent: Corner Stone Investment Limited; Respondent: Nairobi City County Government; Respondent: Chief Land Registrar; Respondent: Ministry of Land, Housing & Urban Development
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 45 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Possession Disputes, Registered Land, Overriding Objective
- 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
Teresia Wairimu Kirima (suing on behalf of the Estate of Gerishon Kamau Kirima)
Petitioner
Corner Stone Investment Limited
Respondent
Nairobi City County Government
Respondent
Chief Land Registrar
Respondent
Ministry of Land, Housing & Urban Development
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st Respondent is entitled to an injunction restraining the Petitioner from interfering with LR 209/11092/16 IR.NO.75352 pending trial.
- 2 Whether the balance of convenience and overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Act favour granting the interlocutory orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issues raised by both parties regarding possession and ownership of the suit land are contested and cannot be resolved at the interlocutory stage. Given that the matter is already set for hearing and in line with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act to ensure expeditious and proportionate resolution of disputes, it is not prudent to grant the injunction sought by the 1st Respondent. The court emphasized the need to focus on the main trial rather than interlocutory applications that would delay the substantive hearing. Accordingly, the application for injunction was dismissed, and parties were directed to proceed to trial.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 6.7.2021 is dismissed.
- Costs shall abide in the outcome of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAIROBI
ELC. PETITION NO. 45 OF 2017
TERESIA WAIRIMU KIRIMA (suing on behalf of the Estate of
GERISHON KAMAU KIRIMA).......................................................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
CORNER STONE INVESTMENT LIMITED.......................................................1STRESPONDENT
NAIROBI CITY COUNTRY GOVERNMENT.....................................................2ND RESPONDENT
CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR...................................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
MINISTRY OF LAND, HOUSING & AMP,URBAN DEVELOPMENT............4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This ruling is in respect of the application dated 6. 7.2021 filed by the 1st Respondent seeking injunction orders against the Petitioner. The Applicant contends that he is not only in possession of the suit land LR 209/11092/16 IR.NO.75352, but he is also the registered owner thereof. He avers that without any claim of right, the Petitioner invaded the property on 28. 6.2021. That the Petitioner went ahead to put her agents therein and the Applicant is unable to gain access to the property.
2. The Respondent/Petitioner has denied the claim of the 1st Respondent averring that it is the family of Gerishon Kamau which has always been in possession of the suit land. That it is the 1st Respondent who was attempting to gain entry into the premises, forcefully.
3. I have weighed all the material presented before me. The Court cannot deal with the contested issues at this stage. Noting that the matter is already ripe for trial, and there being an order given on 5. 10. 2021 for the date of hearing (9. 2.2022) to remain, intact, then I find that in terms of the overriding objective set out in Section 1, 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act it is not prudent to grant the orders.
4. In the circumstance, parties are urged to focus on the main trial.
The application is dismissed. Costs shall abide in the outcome of the suit.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.
LUCY N. MBUGUA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Mulekyo for the Petitioner
Mr. Muriithi for the 1st Respondent
Osoro for the 2nd Respondent
Court Assistant: Eddel Barasa