[2013] KEHC 6110 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 6110 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction against the 1st defendant was rendered moot because the suit property had already been transferred to the 2nd defendant before the application was filed. Since the 1st defendant no longer had any interest in the property, there was nothing left for the court to restrain her from doing. The plaintiff failed to amend his pleadings to reflect the changed circumstances after the 2nd defendant was enjoined in the suit. As a result, the court held that the application lacked merit, had been overtaken by events, and could not be granted. The interim order of injunction previously issued was discharged, and the...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 6110 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Titus Gicharu Mwangi; Defendant: Mary Nyambura Murima; Defendant: Samuel Mburu Kibiro
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 June 2013
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 967 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
CM Kariuki
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Transfer of Land, Quiet Possession, Interlocutory Orders
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Transfer of Land Quiet Possession Interlocutory Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Titus Gicharu Mwangi

Plaintiff

Mary Nyambura Murima

Defendant

Samuel Mburu Kibiro

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the 1st defendant from dealing with or interfering with the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether the application for injunction is moot given the suit property had already been transferred to the 2nd defendant before the application was filed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction against the 1st defendant was rendered moot because the suit property had already been transferred to the 2nd defendant before the application was filed. Since the 1st defendant no longer had any interest in the property, there was nothing left for the court to restrain her from doing. The plaintiff failed to amend his pleadings to reflect the changed circumstances after the 2nd defendant was enjoined in the suit. As a result, the court held that the application lacked merit, had been overtaken by events, and could not be granted. The interim order of injunction previously issued was discharged, and the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application dated 7th December, 2012 is dismissed with costs to the defendants.
  • The interim order of injunction given on 7th December, 2012 stands discharged.