[2010] KEHC 2528 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 2528 (KLR)

The court found that the existence or otherwise of a trust in the suit property is a substantive issue that cannot be resolved at the interlocutory stage. The pleadings and affidavits revealed contested facts regarding whether the plaintiff holds the land in trust for himself and other family members. The principles...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 2528 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Wallace Wagocho Mwambura; Defendant: Hiram Gitonga Mwambura; Defendant: Stephen Waweru Mwambura; Defendant: The Chairman Kigumo Land Control Board
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 173 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Mandatory Injunction, Land Control Board Consent, Trust in Land, Family Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Mandatory Injunction Land Control Board Consent Trust in Land Family Land 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wallace Wagocho Mwambura

Plaintiff

Hiram Gitonga Mwambura

Defendant

Stephen Waweru Mwambura

Defendant

The Chairman Kigumo Land Control Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction compelling the defendants to withdraw their objection before the Land Control Board.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff holds the suit property in trust for himself and other family members.
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant the mandatory injunction sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the existence or otherwise of a trust in the suit property is a substantive issue that cannot be resolved at the interlocutory stage. The pleadings and affidavits revealed contested facts regarding whether the plaintiff holds the land in trust for himself and other family members. The principles governing mandatory injunctions require that such orders be granted only in the clearest of cases, which this was not. The court held that the issues raised necessitate a full trial where evidence can be tested through cross-examination. Accordingly, the application for a mandatory injunction was dismissed, with costs to abide the outcome of the substantive suit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The motion dated 27/1/2010 is dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the substantive suit.