[2020] KEELC 2658 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with a probability of success against the defendants, as the application was unopposed and the plaintiff's evidence was uncontroverted. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff stood to suffer irreparable harm that could not be compensated by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 2658 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Titus Mwangi Mbatia; Defendant: Mututa Mbondo; Defendant: Mutua Mbondo; Defendant: Mbukoni Holdings Limited; Defendant: Drumvale Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd (in liquidation); Defendant: The Commissioner for Lands; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 87 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Possession, Trespass, Irreparable Harm
- 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
Titus Mwangi Mbatia
Plaintiff
Mututa Mbondo
Defendant
Mutua Mbondo
Defendant
Mbukoni Holdings Limited
Defendant
Drumvale Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd (in liquidation)
Defendant
The Commissioner for Lands
Defendant
The Hon. Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of a temporary injunction.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff stands to suffer irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by damages if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with a probability of success against the defendants, as the application was unopposed and the plaintiff's evidence was uncontroverted. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff stood to suffer irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages if the injunction was not granted. Consequently, the court held that the threshold for granting an interlocutory injunction had been met and allowed the application, restraining the 1st to 4th defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the 1st to 4th defendants by themselves or through their agents, employees or anyone acting on their behalf are restrained from encroaching, trespassing on, subdividing, fencing, selling, digging or in any other manner howsoever interfering with the plaintiff’s...
- The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAIROBI
ELC SUIT NO. 87 OF 2019
TITUS MWANGI MBATIA..........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUTUTA MBONDO...........................................1ST DEFENDANT
MUTUA MBONDO.............................................2ND DEFENDANT
MBUKONI HOLDINGS LIMITED..................3RD DEFENDANT
DRUMVALE FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)................4TH DEFENDANT
THE COMMISSIONER FOR LANDS.............5TH DEFENDANT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL................6TH DEFENDANT
RULING
What is before me is the plaintiff’s application dated 5th March, 2019 seeking an order of temporary injunction against the defendants pending the hearing and determination of the suit. I have considered the application together with the supporting affidavit. The application was served upon all the defendants and none filed a response thereto. I am satisfied on the material before the court that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success against the defendants. I am also satisfied that the plaintiff stands to suffer irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by an award of damages unless the orders sought are granted. In essence, the threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction has been established by the plaintiff.
Due to the foregoing, I find merit in the application dated 5th March, 2019. The application is allowed on the following terms;
1. Pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the 1st to 4th defendants by themselves or through their agents, employees or anyone acting on their behalf are restrained from encroaching, trespassing on, subdividing, fencing, selling, digging or in any other manner howsoever interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet possession of the portions of land occupied by the plaintiff within all that parcel of land known as Nairobi/Block 118/1530.
2. The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Delivered and Dated at Nairobi this 12th day of March, 2020
S. OKONG’O
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of:
Mr. Rana h/b for Mr. Wachakana for the Plaintiff
Mr. Odoyo for the Defendants
N/A for the 2nd to 6th defendants
Ms. C. Nyokabi-for the Court Assistant