Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2017] KEELC 680 (KLR)

James Maruti Sirengo (Suing as administrator of the estate of Yohana Sirengo Muhuana) v Monica Taprandich, Emmanuel Kimeli & William Kimoting (Suing as administrator of the estate of Kibet Riongo (Land Case 145 of 2017) [2017] KEELC 680 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 December 2017
561 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, administrator of the estate of Yohana Sirengo Muhuana, moved the Environment and Land Court at Kitale by an application dated 23/8/2017 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his interests in land parcel measuring 3.5 acres, being Title Number Cherangani/Kapcherop/588, pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The plaintiff averred that the deceased bought the land from one Kibet Riongo in 1971, that his family had lived and worked on the land for 46 years, that the title deed was issued in 2015 after both the deceased and the seller had died, and that in March 2017 the defendants invaded the land, prevented the family from preparing it for planting, threatened to sell it and to evict the family, thereby intermeddling with the estate and committing trespass. The defendants, through the replying affidavit of William Kibet Samoei, denied that the plaintiff's father ever bought land from their father, termed the plaintiff's documents forgeries, denied that Kibet Riongo was their father, and asserted that the plaintiff's family had invaded their father's land and had since vacated it on the direction of the local administration, so that no one lawfully occupied the houses on the land. In a short ruling delivered on 20th December 2017, Mwangi Njoroge J held that the land was now registered in the name of the defendants' father and that the plaintiff and his family were not in possession. Observing that the rights of a registered owner under Section 25 of the Land Registration Act had to be observed pending determination of the suit, the court found that an injunction could not issue. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs. The main suit presumably remains pending for full trial.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining the defendants from interfering with land registered in the name of the defendants' father

Holding

The application for injunction was dismissed because the land is registered in the name of the defendants' father and the plaintiff and his family are not in possession.

Reasoning

The court accepted from the record that the land is now registered in the name of the defendants' father. It further found, on the material before it, that the plaintiff and his family were not in possession of the land. Given registration, the court held that the rights of a registered owner under Section 25 of the Land Registration Act had to be observed pending determination of the suit. On those facts, the court found an order of injunction could not issue and dismissed the application without costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Upon registration of land, the rights of the registered owner under Section 25 of the Land Registration Act must be observed, and an injunction will not issue to restrain the registered owner where the applicant is not in possession.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 23/8/2018 (sic, dated 23/8/2017) was dismissed with no orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSection 25
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Maruti Sirengo (Suing as administrator of the estate of Yohana Sirengo Muhuana) v Monica Taprandich, Emmanuel Kimeli & William Kimoting (Suing as administrator of the estate of Kibet Riongo (Land Case 145 of 2017) [2017] KEELC 680 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/680/eng@2017-12-20

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