Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 9th November, 2017· [2019] KEELC 4959 (KLR)

Rutanta Ole Koisikir v Nayiare Ene Koiskirr & 2 others [2019] KEELC 4959 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 January 2019
MKMohammed Noor Kullow
729 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to stop a family land subdivision because the applicant could not prove his claim was likely to succeed at trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, son of the late Kiporonyo Koisikir, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 9th November, 2017 seeking injunction orders restraining the Respondents, his mother and brothers, their agents and employees, from evicting him, denying him access to, or dealing with Land Reference No. Cis-Mara/Ewaso Nyiro/2271 and 2272. He claimed his father was a member of Ewaso Nyiro Group Ranch and a bona fide allottee of Cis-Mara/Ewaso Nyiro/254; on the father's death the 1st Respondent, his mother, was registered as proprietor, and she, in collusion with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, fraudulently applied to the Land Control Board for subdivision and transfer of the land. He asserted he was entitled to a share of his father's estate. The 2nd Respondent opposed, asserting the land was never demarcated to their father, who was instead registered as Musuri Ole Koisikir, and that the 2nd Respondent had been allocated parcels 455 and 255. The court applied the settled Giella v Cassman Brown test for interlocutory injunctions. It found the Applicant had not shown he was administrator of his father's estate to the exclusion of the Respondents, had not discharged the burden of proving the Respondents were occupying the land to his exclusion, and that the fraud allegations required a full trial. The application for injunction was dismissed, the court declining to grant the orders as prayed. The judgment was delivered in open court at Narok on 18th January, 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success to justify an interlocutory injunction

Holding

The Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case; the application was dismissed

Reasoning

The Applicant claimed his deceased father was the allottee and registered owner of the suit land and that the Respondents fraudulently sought subdivision and transfer. The court noted the Applicant did not show he was administrator of the deceased's estate, and found the allegations of fraud could only be determined at a full hearing. Failing the prima facie case threshold, the injunction could not issue.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • For one to benefit from the discretionary orders of injunction he must demonstrate that he has a prima facie case with a probability of success

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for injunction is dismissed - the court declined to grant the orders as prayed

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Geilla -Versus- Cassman Brown
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (injunction application in a land dispute)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rutanta Ole Koisikir v Nayiare Ene Koiskirr & 2 others [2019] KEELC 4959 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 9th November, 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4959/eng@2019-01-18

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