[2017] KEELC 1062 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff and Defendant have a longstanding dispute over the suit land, with the Defendant claiming ancestral rights and the Plaintiff relying on registration in the name of the deceased. The Plaintiff did not deny the Defendant's claim that his relatives are buried on the land. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1062 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Willy Mwololo Muindi; Defendant: Kasyoka Mbithi Nduva
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 180 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Succession and Administration, Adverse Possession
- 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
Willy Mwololo Muindi
Plaintiff
Kasyoka Mbithi Nduva
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with parcel number Muputi/Kimutwa/226 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the dispute over ownership of the suit land should be determined in this suit or in succession proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff and Defendant have a longstanding dispute over the suit land, with the Defendant claiming ancestral rights and the Plaintiff relying on registration in the name of the deceased. The Plaintiff did not deny the Defendant's claim that his relatives are buried on the land. The court held that the issue of entitlement to the land could only be determined after a full trial or in succession proceedings. As such, the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The appropriate order was to maintain the prevailing status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit, and the application for injunction was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Application dated 4th November, 2016 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 180 OF 2016
WILLY MWOLOLO MUINDI ...................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KASYOKA MBITHI NDUVA .................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the Application dated 4th November, 2016, the Plaintiff is seeking for the following orders:
a. That the Defendant/Respondent by himself, his agents and/or servants be restrained by an order of injunction from continuing to unlawfully encroach and trespass into parcel number Muputi/Kimutwa/226 and thereby grazing, cutting down trees and clearing vegetation therein or interfering with the said parcel in whatever manner pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
b. That costs of this Application be borne by the Respondent.
2. The Application is based on the grounds that the suit land is registered in the name of the late Muindi Kitolo Kithana; that the Defendant has encroached on the suit land and that the injunctive order should issue.
3. In response, the Defendant deponed that he was born and raised on the suit land 70 years ago; that the suit land is his ancestral land; that his father and grandparents were buried on the land and that the Plaintiff has taken out letters of administration without his knowledge.
4. The advocates for the two parties filed their respective submissions.
5. According to the Plaintiff’s advocate, the Defendant has not filed any claim seeking for the suit land; that the suit land is registered in the name of the deceased and that the Applicant has established a prima facie case with chances of success.
6. The Defendant’s counsel submitted that the Plaintiff should have applied for a full grant so that the issue of ownership could be determined in the succession matter.
7. The Plaintiff has annexed on his Affidavit a certificate of search showing that the suit land is registered in the name of the late Muindi Kitolo.
8. In his Affidavit, the Defendant has stated that since the year 2008, the Defendant has been encroaching on the suit land.
9. On the other hand, the Defendant claims that the land in question is his ancestral land and that he has even buried his father on the land.
10. It would appear that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have had a long standing feud over the suit land.
11. Considering that the Plaintiff has not denied that indeed the Defendant’s father and grandfather have been buried on the suit land, the issue of who is entitled to the land can only be determined either after the full trial or in succession proceedings.
12. In the circumstances, the most appropriate order to make is for the maintenance of the prevailing status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
13. Consequently, the Application dated 4th November, 2016 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE