Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2016] KEELC 667 (KLR)

Rosemary Wangari & 2 others v Lucy Wanjiru Muturi [2016] KEELC 667 (KLR)

Environment & Land Court
12 July 2016
MSMunyao Sila
523 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment & Land Court in Nakuru blocked a defendant from placing containers on Gilgil land the plaintiffs own, because she filed nothing to justify her claim.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The three plaintiffs, who pleaded ownership of land parcel L.R No. 1317/2/III in Gilgil Town (acquired from their late father, jointly with a brother), filed a plaint on 27 April 2016 seeking to permanently restrain the defendant from placing containers in front of their premises. They alleged that on 14 April 2016 their tenants were told by the defendant to close the entrance to their businesses by 30 April 2016 as she intended to place a container there, which would block access to the plaintiffs' premises, an area in which she had no proprietary rights. Together with the plaint the plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from putting up containers or any other structure in front of the suit property pending the hearing of the suit. The defendant was served but neither entered appearance nor filed any response. The court, per Munyao Sila J, found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated ownership of the suit property through a deed plan annexed to their supporting affidavit, and that the area where the defendant wished to place the containers appeared to be a reserve of the suit property. The defendant had not demonstrated any right to place containers or structures in the area. The court held the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success and would suffer loss if the defendant proceeded. The application was allowed: the defendant and her servants, agents or assigns were restrained from putting up any container, erecting any structure, or in any way interfering with the parcel or its siding reserve pending hearing and determination of the case. Costs of the application were made costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to an interlocutory injunction over interference with land

Holding

Application for interlocutory injunction allowed; the defendant, who had not entered appearance, was restrained from placing containers or structures on the suit property or its siding reserve pending trial.

Reasoning

The plaintiffs demonstrated ownership of L.R No. 1317/2/III by way of a deed plan annexed to their supporting affidavit, having acquired it from their late father. The area where the defendant intended to place containers appears to be a reserve of the suit property. The defendant, despite service, filed nothing and did not enter appearance, so she demonstrated no right to place containers there. The plaintiffs therefore showed a prima facie case with probability of success and stood to suffer loss if the defendant proceeded.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking an interlocutory injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success; ownership of the suit property against an intervening party with no demonstrated right satisfies this threshold.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The defendant and/or her servants/agents/assigns restrained from putting up any container, erecting any structure, entering or being upon, utilizing, or in any other way interfering with the land parcel L.R No. 1317/2/III or the siding reserve to the said land, pending the hearing and determination of the case
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act over disputes relating to land; specific provision not stated in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rosemary Wangari & 2 others v Lucy Wanjiru Muturi [2016] KEELC 667 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/667/eng@2016-07-12

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.