[2008] KEHC 1856 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 1856 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff, as the registered owner of the suit property, had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The defendants had no lawful claim to the land, were not members of the plaintiff company, and had not established any right by adverse possession. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 1856 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Unity 45 Housing Co-operative Society Ltd; Defendant: John Kimani; Defendant: Peter Kimuli Nguli; Defendant: John Ndungu Murimi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 212 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff pending determination of the suit
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Trespass, Prima Facie Case
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Land Ownership Disputes Trespass Prima Facie Case

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unity 45 Housing Co-operative Society Ltd

Plaintiff

John Kimani

Defendant

Peter Kimuli Nguli

Defendant

John Ndungu Murimi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have any lawful claim or right to the suit property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff, as the registered owner of the suit property, had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The defendants had no lawful claim to the land, were not members of the plaintiff company, and had not established any right by adverse possession. The absence of the defendants and their failure to present any argument further supported the plaintiff's case. Consequently, the court issued an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the land pending the determination of the suit, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff pending determination of the suit

Orders

  • An injunction is issued restraining the defendants from interfering with LR 11531/9 until determination of the suit.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff.