[2015] KEHC 3295 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 3295 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case by demonstrating purchase of the land, possession, and development, while the defendant had failed to respond or appear. The risk of irreparable harm was evident as the plaintiff could be evicted or the property transferred, and monetary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 3295 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Valerio Kibaara; Defendant: Peter Murungi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 30 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition and Injunction
Outcome
Application allowed in terms of prayers 3 and 5; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Inhibition Orders, Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Sale Agreements, Title Transfer Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Inhibition Orders Interlocutory Injunctions Land Sale Agreements Title Transfer Disputes

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Valerio Kibaara

Plaintiff

Peter Murungi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition and Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order of inhibition restraining the defendant from dealing with Land Parcel No. Amwathi/Maua/4150 pending hearing.
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunction should issue to restrain the defendant from entering, trespassing, alienating, or dealing with the suit property pending hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case by demonstrating purchase of the land, possession, and development, while the defendant had failed to respond or appear. The risk of irreparable harm was evident as the plaintiff could be evicted or the property transferred, and monetary compensation would not suffice. The court exercised its discretion to grant inhibition and interlocutory injunction orders to preserve the status quo pending hearing, as the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in terms of prayers 3 and 5; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • An order of inhibition is issued against Land Parcel No. Amwathi/Maua/4150 restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, representatives, or any other claiming through him from dealing in any way with the title pending interpartes hearing.
  • An interlocutory injunction is granted restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, representatives, or any other person claiming through him from entering, trespassing, alienating, or in any other way dealing in the plaintiff's suit property Land Parcel No. Amwathi/Maua/4150 pending hearing.