[2008] KEHC 3308 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, having previously succeeded before the Minister and the High Court regarding ownership of the disputed land. The defendants, despite being served, failed to oppose the application or provide any justification for their actions. The court was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3308 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Wanza Ileli; Defendant: Musyoka Kavingo; Defendant: Mutinda Kavingo; Defendant: Mwema Kavingo; Defendant: Munywoki Kavingo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 51 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Hearing of Main Suit
- Outcome
- Application for interlocutory injunction granted.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Land Ownership Dispute, Trespass, Adjudication Appeals
- 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
Wanza Ileli
Plaintiff
Musyoka Kavingo
Defendant
Mutinda Kavingo
Defendant
Mwema Kavingo
Defendant
Munywoki Kavingo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Hearing of Main Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors the grant of an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, having previously succeeded before the Minister and the High Court regarding ownership of the disputed land. The defendants, despite being served, failed to oppose the application or provide any justification for their actions. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if the defendants continued to trespass and waste the land. Applying the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown, the court held that the balance of convenience favored the grant of an injunction to preserve the subject matter pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. Accordingly, the court granted the...
Court Disposition
Application for interlocutory injunction granted.
Orders
- An injunction is issued restraining the defendants from trespassing, harvesting trees, burning charcoal, harvesting red soil, or interfering with the plaintiff's possession of LR No. Nyambani/Nyanika/2906 until the hearing and determination of the main suit.
- Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
66 paragraphs
1. Land and Environmental Law Division.
2. Subject of main suit :-LAND/Trespass
Eviction
3. Application 21st February 2008
Injunction
a) restrain defendants 1,2,3,& 4 from entering land and harvesting trees burning charcoal.
4. No reply by defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 – served.
5. Held
a) Injunction to issue till finalization of suit.
b) Probability of success
i) Parties before Land Adjudication Officer
ii) Appeal by plaintiff to minister
iii) Minister granted 60%:40%. Share of land
respectively
iv) Appeal to Higher Court
v) High Court on appeal Visram J. upheld the
ministers’ findings
vi) The respondents evade plaintiff’s land and
cause destruction.
vii) That court hereby holds injunction to issue
due to prohibiting of irreparable loss pending the main suit.
6. Case Law
7. Advocate
W Kimeria of Wamahiu Kimeria & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff/applicant – present
Musyoka Kavingo )
Mutinda Kavingo ) Defendants in person
Mwema Kavingo )
Munywoki Kavingo )
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Environment and Land Case 51 of 2008
WANZA ILELI ……………………………………………PLAINTIFF
V E R SU S
MUSYOKA KAVINGO …………………..……… 1ST DEFENDANT
MUTINDA KAVINGO …………………………… 2ND DEFENDANT
MWEMA KAVINGO …………………………….. 3RD DEFENDANT
MUNYWOKI KAVINGO ………………………...…4TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
APPLICATION 21ST FEBRUARY 2008,
INJUNCTION
I: PROCEDURE
1. Wanza Ileli, herein the plaintiff in this application and suit seeks orders of injunction against:-
Musyoka Kavingo,
Mutinda Kavingo,
Mwema Kavingo and
Munywoki Kavingo
“restraining the four jointly and severally from trespassing upon harvesting trees, burning charcoal, harvesting red soil and interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful and quite possession of LR No. Nyambani/Nyanika/2906 until the hearing and determination of the main suit”.
2. The matter was not certified as urgent by Kariuki J and was set down for hearing on 7th April, 2008. All four respondents were duly served on 1st March 2008. None put in grounds of opposition or replying affidavit at the time of hearing only
Musyoka Kavingo and Mwema Kavingo the 1st and 3rd defendants/respondents appeared to court.
3. The application having proceeded under Order xbr3 (a) Civil Procedure Rules.
II BACKGROUND OF APPLICATION
4. The parties have been in dispute over land for at least 30 years. The land matter went before the adjudication officer who apportion the land ownership between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant at a portion not satisfactory to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed to the Minister. The matter took 14 years to make a decision on the appeal. On 24. 5.04 his decision was that land be approved 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the defendant No. 1. Defendant No.1 being dissatisfied filed a Judicial Review in this High Court being Miscellaneous Criminal Application 951/04. It came before Visram J who upheld the Minister’s decision.
5. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants invaded the land and began wasting it. The plaintiff filed this new suit of HCCC 51/08 seeking injunction orders to restrain all four from wasting the said land.
III OPINION
6. In relying on the principles of Giella Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] E.A 358 the court must satisfy itself that he had a prima facie case, there may be irreparable loss and that in the balance of convenience dictates whether an injunction should issue if in doubt.
7. In this case this court is satisfied that the plaintiff has a probability of success in her suit. She had been successful in her past cases. Her main case is for the eviction and for restraining the defendants from dealing with the land. If they do so, she will suffer loss.
8. I hereby grant the application for injunction till the termination of the suit. There will be costs to the applicant.
DATED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2008 AT NAIROBI
M. A. ANG’AWA
J U D G E
W. Kimeria of Wamahiu Kimeria & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff/applicant – present
Musyoka Kavingo )
Mutinda Kavingo ) Defendants in person
Mwema Kavingo )
Munywoki Kavingo