Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 31st May, 2016)· [2018] KEELC 3088 (KLR)

Cecilio Murango Mwenda & 2 others v Isaac Kimathi Ikunga [2018] KEELC 3088 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 May 2018
PNP.M. Njoroge
1,025 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court froze the situation as it was on the ground: neither side touching disputed Marimanti plots until the full trial decides ownership.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Chuka delivered by P.M. Njoroge J on 28th May 2018 in a land dispute between three plaintiffs and a defendant over commercial plots in Marimanti Township, Tharaka Nithi County. The plaintiffs, registered in 2009 as proprietors of plots L.R. Nos. N. Tharaka/Marimanti/2272, 2273 and 2274, moved by notice of motion dated 31st May 2016 seeking temporary injunctions to restrain the defendant, his agents and servants from entering, fencing, encroaching upon or trespassing onto the plots, contending that in August 2015 the defendant fenced off parts of their plots and in May 2016 subdivided his adjacent plot L.R. No. N. Tharaka/Marimanti/2391 including the encroached portions into 26 plots for sale, occasioning them irreparable loss. The motion, supported by an affidavit of the first plaintiff, an advocate, further sought service on the O.C.S. Marimanti and a penal notice. At the interpartes hearing both sides jointly asked the court to allow the application and grant an order that status quo be maintained. The court, without making findings on the merits of the encroachment claim, directed that status quo be maintained, deemed the application heard and settled, ordered costs in the cause, and fixed the main suit for hearing on 2nd July 2018. The substantive claims and defences remain to be determined at the full trial.

Key legal issues

#
01

Maintenance of status quo pending full hearing

Holding

The court directed that status quo be maintained between the parties over the suit plots pending the hearing of the main suit

Reasoning

At the interpartes hearing, counsel for both sides jointly requested that the application be allowed and that status quo be maintained. On that common position the court adopted a consent-type direction preserving the position on the ground, deemed the motion heard and settled, made no merits findings on the alleged encroachment, and fixed the main suit for hearing. Costs were left to the cause, reserving all interlocutory costs questions.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where parties at an interlocutory hearing agree that status quo be maintained, the court may so direct and deem the application heard and settled

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Status quo to be maintained
  2. 2.The application dated 31st May 2016 deemed heard and settled
  3. 3.Costs in the cause
  4. 4.Hearing of the main suit on 2nd July 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; original civil jurisdiction over land disputes (interlocutory notice of motion in a land suit)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cecilio Murango Mwenda & 2 others v Isaac Kimathi Ikunga [2018] KEELC 3088 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 31st May, 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3088/eng@2018-05-28

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