[2011] KEHC 1078 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, as she was in occupation of land parcel No. Kabondo/Kodhoch East/1209 pursuant to a confirmed grant. The defendant's allegations of fraud and improper division were not sufficient to deny the injunction at...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1078 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Yunia Auma Amolo; Defendant: Dorine Dorothy Amolo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 79 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction allowed with costs.
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Land Partition, Administration of Estates, Title 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
Yunia Auma Amolo
Plaintiff
Dorine Dorothy Amolo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her occupation of land parcel No. Kabondo/Kodhoch East/1209.
- 2 Whether the division of the deceased's estate was done in accordance with the confirmed grant.
- 3 Whether allegations of fraud and forgery raised by the defendant are relevant at this interlocutory stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, as she was in occupation of land parcel No. Kabondo/Kodhoch East/1209 pursuant to a confirmed grant. The defendant's allegations of fraud and improper division were not sufficient to deny the injunction at this interlocutory stage, as such issues could be raised and determined at trial or pursued through criminal proceedings if necessary. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo, with each party enjoying their respective portions as per the confirmed grant, and that the defendant would not suffer loss as she retained use of her own...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction allowed with costs.
Orders
- Temporary injunction granted restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's occupation of land parcel No. Kabondo/Kodhoch East/1209.
- Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
CIVIL CASE NO. 79 OF 2010
YUNIA AUMA AMOLO…………………………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DORINE DOROTHY AMOLO…………………………………DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The plaintiff brings this application against the defendant seeking among others temporary orders of injunction to restrain the defendant from cultivating on land parcel No. Kabondo East/1209.
The said application is dated 31-5-2010. The issues herein are fairly straight forward. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are the widows of the late Wellington Amolloh Sigu who passed on, on 4-3-1978. Both parties sought out letters of administration vide Kisumu HCC No. 954/2004 and the same were confirmed.
Title No. Kabondo/Kodhoch East/735 was to be divided into two equal parts between the plaintiff and the defendant as per the grant which was confirmed on 10-3-2006. Accordingly the land was divided and the plaintiff obtained land parcel No. Kabondo/Kodhoch East/1209 and the defendant land parcel No. Kabondo/Kodhoch East/1210.
The plaintiff contention is that the defendant has interfered with her peaceful occupation of the suit land by among other things using police officers to harass her. She has exhibited some police summons.
The defendant contends that the plaintiff has taken the larger part of the land and that the same ought to have been shared equally as per the confirmed grant.
I have read the application together with the sworn affidavits, summons and the attendant authorities by the litigants herein I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff/applicants application be allowed and temporary injunction be issued as prayed.
The allegation of fraud alleged by the defendant and in particular the forgery of her signatures can be raised during the trial and in any event she should pursue it with the criminal arm of the law. In the event that the plaintiff’s portion is big as claimed by the defendant, the District Survey office should be contacted to verify. The defendant stand to suffer no loss as she is enjoying the use of her portion in any event.
Prayer 3 of the plaintiff’s chamber summons dated 31-5-2010 is allowed with costs. The issues raised by the defendant in regard to the rest of the titles are not relevant for now as I have been confined to the two parcels of land only.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 26th day of October, 2011.
H. K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
HKC/va