Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (suit concerning Plot No. Kaloleni/Chalani/III)· [2016] KEELC 701 (KLR)

Kavumbi Kitsao Chengo & another v Samuel Charo Mweni (sued in his own capacity and as the legal representative of the estate of the late Karisa Madumbo Mweni & 3 others [2016] KEELC 701 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 July 2016
OAO. A. Angote
463 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

#

A Kenyan land court refused to stop property owners from selling or subdividing land because the applicants brought no evidence to prove the alleged sales.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Malindi (O. A. Angote, Judge) on a Notice of Motion dated 14th December 2015 by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiffs from subdividing, selling portions of, or allowing strangers to construct structures on Plot No. Kaloleni/Chalani/III pending hearing and determination of the suit. The 1st Defendant deponed that the Plaintiffs and their agents were subdividing and selling the suit land to defeat justice. The Plaintiffs opposed, denying the allegations, and reiterated that they were entitled to the estate of the late Baya Ngwana, the registered proprietor of the suit property. The court observed that on 31st October 2014 it had already granted the Plaintiffs an injunction restraining the Defendants from selling or dealing with the suit property pending determination of the suit. The Defendants, however, annexed no document to substantiate the claim that the Plaintiffs were selling the property; photographs of a temporary structure did not show that the structure belonged to anyone other than the Plaintiffs' family members, and there was no evidence of subdivision or sale. The court accordingly declined to grant the injunction, dismissed the Defendants' application dated 14th December 2015, and awarded costs to the Plaintiffs. No authorities or statutory provisions were cited in the ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Defendants satisfied the requirements for grant of a temporary injunction against the Plaintiffs

Holding

The application failed for want of evidence; the Defendants did not demonstrate that the Plaintiffs were subdividing, selling or permitting construction on the suit property.

Reasoning

The court noted it had earlier granted the Plaintiffs an injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with the suit property pending the suit. The Defendants sought a reciprocal injunction but annexed no documents proving the alleged sales. Photographs of a temporary structure did not establish that the structure was not the Plaintiffs' family members'. With no evidence of the alleged acts, the court declined the injunction and dismissed the motion with costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for a temporary injunction must support the application with evidence of the acts sought to be restrained; bald allegations unsupported by documents or proof will not justify an injunction.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendants' Application dated 14th December 2015 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Plaintiffs
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kavumbi Kitsao Chengo & another v Samuel Charo Mweni (sued in his own capacity and as the legal representative of the estate of the late Karisa Madumbo Mweni & 3 others [2016] KEELC 701 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment (suit concerning Plot No. Kaloleni/Chalani/III). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/701/eng@2016-07-14

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