[2004] KEHC 2459 (KLR)
The court found that the application for restraining orders was unmeritorious because the eight acres in question had not been surveyed, was not beaconed, and did not have a specific LR number, making it impossible to identify or enforce any restraining order. The court emphasized that it does not grant orders in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 2459 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Merton Kisianyani Muindi; Applicant: Moses Khisa Muhindi; Respondent: __MISSING__
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 79 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Probate and Administration / Post Judgment Application for Restraining Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Legal Topics
- Estate Distribution, Restraining Orders, Survey Disputes
- 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
Merton Kisianyani Muindi
Applicant
Moses Khisa Muhindi
Applicant
__MISSING__
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration / Post Judgment Application for Restraining Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to restraining orders against the respondents regarding use and possession of eight acres on parcel No. 194 Kipsoen Settlement Scheme pending survey.
- 2 Whether the court should grant orders where the subject land is not surveyed or specifically identified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for restraining orders was unmeritorious because the eight acres in question had not been surveyed, was not beaconed, and did not have a specific LR number, making it impossible to identify or enforce any restraining order. The court emphasized that it does not grant orders in vain and that the parties should instead cooperate to execute the judgment by agreeing on how the survey should be carried out. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application dated 21/4/2004 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
48 paragraphs
1
REPUBLIC OF KENYA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE.
PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION NO. 79 OF 2000.
YOHANA MUINDI MUSEBE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DECEASED.
AND
MERTON KISIANYANI MUINDI )
MOSES KHISA MUHINDI ) :::::::::::::::::::: PETITIONERS.
R U L I N G.
The main suit in this matter was concluded on 19/11/2002 when the
High Court distributed the estate of the deceased one Yohana Muindi
Musembe in P & A No. 79/00.
There was no appeal against the Judgment. There hasn’t even been
any application for review of the said orders.
Two years down the line the beneficiaries have yet to subdivide the
said properly as ordered by the court.
The survey is said to have been stopped by some of the beneficiaries.
The applicants herein have now moved the court vide a chamber
summons dated 21/4/2004 which is filed under a certificate of urgency.
The petitioners are asking the court to issue an order restraining the
respondents from interfering with the applicant’s use and possession of (8)
eight acres on parcel No. 194 Kipsoen Settlement scheme pending and survey
by the District Surveyor.
They have not told the court if and when the said survey will be done.
They claim that the respondent have interfered in their use of the 8 acres.
I have heard both consents in their submissions in this matter. I have
also considered the contents of the affidavits for and against the
application.
In my view, the matter before me is very straightforward indeed and
that is why this ruling will be very short.
It is not disputed that the land has not been surveyed. The 8 acres parcel
which the applicant want the respondents restrained from interfering in is
amorphous on the ground. It has not been surveyed; it is not beaconed and
so it doesn’t even have an LR number by which it can be identified.
Instead of bringing to court applications for restraining orders, the
applicants should sit down with the others and agree on how the survey
should be carried out. This will sort out their problems once and for all.
Let the parties execute the court judgment and live happily evenafter.
This application is not meritorious. The orders sought should not be
issued, as it will be difficult to comply with them on the ground. The court
does not give orders in vain.
For the aforegoing reasons, I dismiss the application dated
21/4/2004 with costs to the Respondents.
WANJIRU KARANJA.
AG. JUDGE.
3/6/2004.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED THIS ………………………… DAY OF JUNE, 2004 AT
KITALE IN PRESENCE OF ………………………………….