[2016] KEELC 582 (KLR)
The court found that neither party had surveyed the land or provided clear evidence of the boundaries set by the late Guyo Chimpa. Multiple attempts by local authorities to resolve the dispute were noted, and the only ascertainable boundary was the trench/valley dug on the area chief's instructions. In the absence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELC 582 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Wedo Abadira Guyo; Plaintiff: Abdirahaman Abadiba; Plaintiff: Kunyo Guyo; Defendant: Bocha Kukuyu Komonani; Defendant: Bati Sako Komonani; Defendant: Mohamed Motanyi Komonani
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 209 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction dismissed.
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Family Land Disputes, Boundary Disputes, Interlocutory Injunctions
- 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
Wedo Abadira Guyo
Plaintiff
Abdirahaman Abadiba
Plaintiff
Kunyo Guyo
Plaintiff
Bocha Kukuyu Komonani
Defendant
Bati Sako Komonani
Defendant
Mohamed Motanyi Komonani
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with Bara Farm pending determination of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the boundaries between the plaintiffs' and defendants' portions of land are ascertainable and should be preserved pending trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that neither party had surveyed the land or provided clear evidence of the boundaries set by the late Guyo Chimpa. Multiple attempts by local authorities to resolve the dispute were noted, and the only ascertainable boundary was the trench/valley dug on the area chief's instructions. In the absence of precise evidence regarding the extent of the plaintiffs' land, the court held that the boundaries as determined by the area chief should be observed pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. Consequently, the plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction was dismissed, and the status quo as established by the chief was to be maintained.
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction dismissed.
Orders
- The trench/valley dug on the instructions of the area Chief to serve as a boundary between the two families to be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- Each party to bear his or her own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MALINDI
ELC CIVIL CASE NO.209 OF 2015
1. WEDO ABADIRA GUYO
2. ABDIRAHAMAN ABADIBA
3. KUNYO GUYO.................................................................PLAINTIFFS
=VERSUS=
1. BOCHA KUKUYU KOMONANI
2. BATI SAKO KOMONANI
3. MOHAMED MOTANYI KOMONANI........................DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
1. What is before me is the Application by the Plaintiff dated 12th November, 2015 seeking for the following orders:-
(a) THAT the respondents by themselves, servants, agents or any other person claiming under their authority be temporarily restrained from trespassing into, sub-dividing, alienating, transferring or in any other way dealing with Bara Farm measuring approximately 300 acres or any part thereof pending hearing and determination of the main suit.
(b) THAT cost of the application be awarded to the applicant.
2. According to the 1st Plaintiff's deposition, he is the eldest son of Abidiba and a beneficiary of 300 acres that were given to them by their grandfather, Guyo Chimpa (deceased); that all the other Plaintiffs are his brothers and have settled on the suit property and that the Respondents who are his nephews were given 200 acres of land by his grandfather.
3. It is the 1st Plaintiff's deposition that the Defendants laid claim on the suit property by attempting to adjust the boundary marks; that the elders resolved that the Respondents had trespassed into Bara Farm and that part of the suit property being claimed by the Respondents was reserved for cultivation and grazing of livestock.
4. In response, the 1st Defendant deponed that they were born and brought up on the suit property; that after the death of their parents, the 1st Defendant's brother started making allegations that they had altered boundaries and that the matter was referred to the area chief who adjudicated over the dispute.
5. It is the Defendants' case that after the deliberations before the Chief, a big valley was dug to serve as a boundary between the two portions of land and that when the matter was escalated to the higher authority, it was confirmed that the Plaintiffs were wrong.
6. The Applicants' advocate filed brief submissions in which he reiterated the Plaintiffs' depositions.
7. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are members of the family of the late Guyo Chimpa.
8. According to the Plaintiffs, their family was allocated 300 acres by their grandfather while the Defendants were allocated 200 acres.
9. The Plaintiffs case is that the Defendants have moved the boundary that was set up by the patriarch, the late Guyo Chimpa.
10. It would appear that neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants have surveyed the land that was purportedly allocated to them.
11. Indeed, it is not clear to this court the kind of boundary the late Guyo Chimpa put up to separate the land in respect to the two families.
12. The evidence before me shows that the Chief, the village elders and the County Government have all attempted to resolve the dispute between the two families.
13. Considering that there is no evidence on record to assist the court to precisely state the extent of the Plaintiffs' land, I am of the view that pending the hearing and determination of the suit, the boundaries that were determined by the area Chief should be observed by the two families.
14. In the circumstances, I dismiss the Plaintiffs' Application dated 12th November 2015 with no orders as to costs and direct as follows:-
(a) The trench/valley that was dug on the instructions of the area Chief to serve as a boundary between the two families to be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
(b) Each party to bear his or her own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered in Malindi this 14thday of September, 2016.
O. A. Angote
Judge