[2024] KEELC 4100 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 4100 (KLR)

The court found that the surveyor's report confirmed the existence of a 6-metre wide access road to the plaintiff's property, Nairobi Block 66/7141. As the core factual dispute regarding the extent of any alleged encroachment required full trial for determination, the court held that it was inappropriate to grant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 4100 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Cicilia Nyambura Thairu; Defendant: Michael Kamotho Karuru
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E066 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Application for interlocutory orders declined; application marked as spent.
Judges
LN Mbugua
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Land Access Disputes, Trespass, Survey Evidence
Source Language
en
Land and Property Injunctive Relief Land Access Disputes Trespass Survey Evidence

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cicilia Nyambura Thairu

Plaintiff

Michael Kamotho Karuru

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory orders restraining the defendant from interfering with the access road to Nairobi Block 66/7141 pending the hearing of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the surveyor's report establishes the existence and sufficiency of access to the plaintiff's property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the surveyor's report confirmed the existence of a 6-metre wide access road to the plaintiff's property, Nairobi Block 66/7141. As the core factual dispute regarding the extent of any alleged encroachment required full trial for determination, the court held that it was inappropriate to grant interlocutory injunctive relief at this stage. The application for interim orders was therefore declined, and the application marked as spent, pending the substantive hearing of the suit.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory orders declined; application marked as spent.

Orders

  • The application dated 22.8.2023 is marked as spent.
  • No interlocutory orders are granted at this stage.