[2012] KEHC 5325 (KLR)
The court found that while there were unresolved issues regarding the completion and legality of the land transfer, it was undisputed that the applicant had purchased the land, paid for the transfer, and had been in possession, with communication between the applicant and the respondent's officials. Given the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 5325 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: William Olotch; Defendant: Town Council of Ukwala
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 193 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the applicant; costs to abide the outcome of the case
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Land Ownership Disputes, Possession and Occupation, Transfer of Land
- 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
William Olotch
Plaintiff
Town Council of Ukwala
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with Plot No. 39 Sega Market.
- 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while there were unresolved issues regarding the completion and legality of the land transfer, it was undisputed that the applicant had purchased the land, paid for the transfer, and had been in possession, with communication between the applicant and the respondent's officials. Given the ongoing dispute and the applicant's possession, the court held that the balance of convenience favored the applicant. Therefore, the court granted the temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from encroaching, trespassing, subdividing, selling, or interfering with Plot No. 39 Sega Market until the matter is fully heard and determined.
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the applicant; costs to abide the outcome of the case
Orders
- A temporary injunction is granted restraining the respondent, their employees, servants, agents, and representatives from encroaching, trespassing, subdividing, selling, or interfering with Plot No. 39 Sega Market (previously No. 40) until the case is heard and determined.
- Costs to abide the outcome of the case.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
CIVIL CASE NO. 193 OF 2011
WILLIAM OLOTCH ...............................................................................PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
TOWN COUNCIL OF UKWALA...........................................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The application before court is a Notice of Motion dated 31st October, 2011 brought pursuant to Order 40 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 63(c), 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking for:-
“1. That this matter be certified as urgent and be heard ex parte in the 1st instance.
2. That a temporary injunction be granted restraining the respondent their employees, servants, agents or representatives from encroaching,trespassing,subdividin, transferring and/or interfering with Plot No. 39 Sega Market (previous No. 40) until the application is heard and determined.
3. That a temporary injunction be granted restraining the respondent, their employees, servants agent and or representatives from encroaching,trespassing,subdividing and selling and interfering with the Plot No. 39 Sega Market previously no. 40 until the issue is heard and determined.
Costs of this application.”
Prayers 1 & 2 are now spent. For determination are prayers 3 & 4.
2. The application is based on the affidavit of the applicant WILLIAM OLOTCH OWAKOand the grounds on the fact of the application as follows; the defendant is subdividing plot No. 39 Sega market (previously 40), the defendant has disregarded the plaintiffs’ right over the land, the plaintiffs’ use and occupation is being interfered with.
3. The respondent through its town clerk Patrick O. Wakine objected to the application on the grounds that; the process of transfer was incomplete as the respondent did not make a decision or ratify the same, the applicant has not exhibited proof of ownership; the purported transfer was after 15 years; the applicant has no allotment letter, the application is an abuse of court process.
4. There is no dispute that the applicant herein purchased the land in question. Indeed after entering into the sale agreement the applicant although several years later paid for the transfer which moneys the respondent received and acknowledge. There are several issues raised; whether the transfer was complete; whether the same is illegal etc. It has however not being disputed that the applicant has been in possession and communicated severally with the respondent’s officials.
5. The outstanding issues are better argued at full hearing. For now it is my view that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant. I therefore grant prayer 3.
Costs to abide the outcome of the case.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012.
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
…………………………………………… present for Appellant
……………………………….….…….present for Respondent