[2024] KEELC 6070 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 6070 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie arguable case, as there was evidence of a family dispute over the ownership and occupation of the suit property, with both parties in occupation and no title issued. The applicant demonstrated apprehension of irreparable harm, as the respondents had subdivided the land and were allegedly offering it for sale, which could not be adequately compensated by damages. The balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo to prevent further alienation or interference with the property pending the determination of the appeal. The court applied the principles from Giella v Cassman Brown and related authorities, concluding...

Citation
[2024] KEELC 6070 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Matha Mwelu Waita; Respondent: Sammy Kinai David; Respondent: David Muthiani Waita
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Makueni
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
18 September 2024
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 10 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
TW Murigi
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Harm, Balance of Convenience, Family Land Disputes
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Temporary Injunctions Prima Facie Case Irreparable Harm Balance of Convenience Family Land Disputes

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matha Mwelu Waita

Appellant

Sammy Kinai David

Respondent

David Muthiani Waita

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of a temporary injunction pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie arguable case, as there was evidence of a family dispute over the ownership and occupation of the suit property, with both parties in occupation and no title issued. The applicant demonstrated apprehension of irreparable harm, as the respondents had subdivided the land and were allegedly offering it for sale, which could not be adequately compensated by damages. The balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo to prevent further alienation or interference with the property pending the determination of the appeal. The court applied the principles from Giella v Cassman Brown and related authorities, concluding...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued against the respondents, their agents, servants, or any person claiming through them from selling, disposing, or in any way interfering with Plot No. 1324 Kiu Settlement Scheme No. 7, and the status quo shall be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.