Abdisalan Gulla Hamed v Daniel Ngaruthi Kanampiu [2017] KEELC 2766 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land buyer's family won court protection of their purchased plot, but the court capped that protection at twelve months.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Entitlement to a temporary injunction over land sold under an agreement where the purchaser has since died and taken possession
On the unopposed material - a written sale agreement dated 15th March 2005 executed before an advocate, full payment of Ksh. 15,000/= acknowledged before the advocate, and occupation and farming of the land for over six years - the plaintiff administrator established sufficient grounds for a temporary injunction protecting the estate's possession pending trial
The plaintiff deponed that the deceased entered a sale agreement with the defendant as purchaser, paid the entire consideration, and that the family took possession and farmed the land for more than six years before being threatened and chased away by the defendant. The defendant was served and given time to obtain counsel but did not appear or file a response, leaving the application uncontroverted. The court therefore allowed the application, though it confined the injunction to a twelve-month period rather than leaving it open-ended until determination of the suit.
Consequences of non-attendance and non-filing of a response by the defendant
The defendant, having been given indulgence to obtain counsel and having failed to appear on the return date, allowed the application to stand unopposed, and it was allowed on that basis
When the matter first came before the court, the defendant requested two months to secure counsel, which the court granted up to 3rd April 2017. On that date the defendant made no appearance. No replying affidavit or grounds of opposition were on record. The court therefore treated the application as unopposed and allowed it, with the qualification that the injunctive orders would lapse after twelve months, and made no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- An unopposed application for temporary injunction may be allowed, but the court may limit the duration of the injunctive orders rather than grant them pending hearing and determination without qualification
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2016 is allowed as unopposed
- 2.A temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his agents and servants from transferring, leasing, charging or selling the plaintiff's unsurveyed parcel of land measuring 2 ½ Acres situated at Maili Tatu in Isiolo pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.The injunctive orders to remain in force for 12 months
- 4.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdisalan Gulla Hamed v Daniel Ngaruthi Kanampiu [2017] KEELC 2766 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2766/eng@2017-05-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.