Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2022] KEELC 3580 (KLR)

Ondigo ((Suing as the Chairman, Committee Member And Co-Coordinator Of Kanyamony Clan Affected Land Property Owners On Their Own Behalf And Behalf Of Members Of Kanyamony Affected Land And Property Owners) v Kisumu & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 35 of 2019) [2022] KEELC 3580 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 May 2022
AOAntony Ombwayo
605 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

#

A Kisumu court blocked respondents from selling, entering or redrawing boundaries on disputed Kisumu/Kogony land until the full case is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu delivered on 13 May 2022 by Antony Ombwayo J in an interlocutory application by the plaintiff/applicants, registered proprietors of parcels within the Kisumu/Kogony C18 Scheme. The applicants sought (1) a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from entering, selling, encroaching or interfering with sixteen listed parcels and especially with the existing boundary line between Kanyakwar and Kogony sub-location; (2) an order compelling the respondents, under section 19 of the Land Registration Act, to cause the precise position of the boundaries to be defined by survey, file a plan and note in the register that boundaries have been fixed; (3) an order compelling the 1st and 2nd defendants to fix boundary features to demarcate the suit property; and (4) a site visit by the court. The application was grounded on the applicants' registered title, the assertion that the 2nd defendant in liaison with the 1st defendant were redrawing the boundary within sheet 18 and creating new parcels to the detriment of the applicants' bona fide titles, and the interest of justice. The respondents did not respond. The court granted only the temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their servants, agents or anyone claiming through them, from entering, selling, encroaching or interfering with the listed parcels pending hearing and determination of the suit, and declined the remaining prayers. Costs were awarded in the cause. The ruling was delivered by electronic mail pursuant to COVID-19 court operations directions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a temporary injunction should issue to preserve the status quo of the suit parcels pending determination of the suit

Holding

A temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondents from entering, selling, encroaching or interfering with the suit parcels pending hearing and determination of the suit

Reasoning

The respondents did not respond to the application. The court considered the plaintiffs' grounds - that they are the registered proprietors of the parcels the respondents intend to acquire, and that the 2nd defendant in liaison with the 1st defendant were on the brink of redrawing the boundary within sheet 18 bordering Kogony and Kanyakwar, creating new land parcels to the detriment of the plaintiffs' bona fide titles. The court found only the injunction merited and declined the remaining prayers.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.A temporary order of injunction restraining the respondents, their servants, agents or anyone claiming title or deriving authority from them, from entering, selling, encroaching or interfering in any manner (especially with the existing boundary line between Kanyakwar and Kogony sub location Kisumu/Kogony C18 Scheme) with parcels Kisumu/Kogony/5145, 5101, 6063, 5874, 58, 5107, 5104, 5103, 5846, 7436, 6723, 5105, 5095, 6012, 6011 and 5967, until this suit is heard and determined
    2. 2.Costs in the cause

    Authorities

    #

    Legislation

    • Land Registration ActSection 19
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Inherent jurisdiction of the court over land disputes and Section 19 of the Land Registration Act (invoked in the prayers)

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Ondigo ((Suing as the Chairman, Committee Member And Co-Coordinator Of Kanyamony Clan Affected Land Property Owners On Their Own Behalf And Behalf Of Members Of Kanyamony Affected Land And Property Owners) v Kisumu & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 35 of 2019) [2022] KEELC 3580 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3580/eng@2022-05-13

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