Chrsipinus Ouma Makuda v Paskalia Akochi Inziani [2019] KEELC 5051 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner whose title is being challenged in court cannot evict or destroy property while the case is pending; the Busia court froze everything to preserve the status quo.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Entitlement to interlocutory injunction over disputed land
Injunction granted to preserve status quo where the registered owner allegedly took premature eviction action and the Applicant has genuine fears of prejudicial dealing with the land
The court found the Respondent is the registered owner but did not deny the alleged demolition of the 2nd Defendant's house and threat to demolish the Applicant's. The Defendants raise trust and adverse possession claims and have filed a related suit. Guided by Giella v Cassman Brown and Otieno v Ougo, and considering the parties' conduct, the court held injunctive relief was fair to maintain the status quo pending trial.
Effect of a challenged title
A registered owner whose title is challenged cannot rely on the title alone without demonstrating the legality of its acquisition
Applying Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathirima, cited by defence counsel, the court accepted that where the defence pleads trust and questions how the title was obtained, the registered proprietor cannot dangle the title as an instrument of ownership. This supported the grant of injunctive relief preserving the status quo until trial.
Legal principles established
#- A challenged title cannot be used as an instrument of ownership without demonstrating the legality of its acquisition (as per Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathirima, applied)
- An injunction is granted to preserve the subject matter pending the hearing and determination of the action
Court orders
#- 1.The application allowed in terms of prayer 3: the Plaintiff, her agents or those claiming through her restrained from entering, demolishing, selling, charging or in any way interfering with land parcel SAMIA/BUTABONA/89 and its subsequent partitions or subdivisions (SAMIA/BUTABONA/2289, 2290, 2291, 2292, 2293, 2294 and 2295) until the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 1(a) and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chrsipinus Ouma Makuda v Paskalia Akochi Inziani [2019] KEELC 5051 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated (ELC, Busia). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/5051/eng@2019-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.