Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2022] KEELC 3680 (KLR)

Opetu & another v Komwoyo & another (Environment & Land Case E011 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 3680 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 June 2022
1,544 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Busia Environment and Land Court froze a disputed land plot in its current state but refused to undo a burial that had already happened.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants, who claim the suit land Marachi/elukhari/2245 by adverse possession under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, moved the court by notice of motion under Order 40 Rules 1-3 seeking interim orders to restrain the 2nd Respondent from burying his deceased daughter on the suit land and from entering, erecting structures or otherwise interfering with their possession pending determination of the suit. The 2nd Respondent countered that he bought the land in 1995, has been in continuous occupation with structures thereon, buried his daughter Jane Anyango Musibi (not Emma Musibi) on 11/12/2021 at the same spot where he buried another daughter in 2011, and that the burial prayer was overtaken by events. The court agreed the burial had already taken place and could not be undone at the interlocutory stage, so prayer (2) failed. Finding that both parties claim occupation of the same parcel, the court held it necessary to preserve the property in its current state and issued a specific injunction barring the Respondents from erecting new structures or buildings, cutting down trees or planting boundaries until the suit is heard and determined. Costs of the application were reserved to the winning party at the conclusion of the case. Judgment delivered at Busia on 8th June 2022 by A. Omollo J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the burial injunction survived the burial having taken place

Holding

The prayer to stop the burial was overtaken by events and could not be granted at the interlocutory stage

Reasoning

The court noted from the further affidavit that the deceased had already been buried on 11/12/2021. An interlocutory court cannot undo a completed burial, so prayer (2) was moot and was not granted.

p. 4
02

Whether an interim injunction to preserve the suit property should issue

Holding

A specific injunction preserving the status quo issued, restraining new structures, tree-cutting and boundary-planting pending determination

Reasoning

Both parties claimed occupation of the same parcel, the Applicants resting on adverse possession under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the 2nd Respondent asserting continuous occupation since 1995. To preserve the subject matter and evidence pending trial, the court granted a narrowly tailored injunction against erecting new structures, cutting trees or planting boundaries.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where both parties claim occupation of the same parcel of land pending trial, the court may preserve the suit property in its current state by targeted injunction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Prayer (2) of the application, seeking to stop the burial, declared overtaken by events and not granted
  2. 2.An order of injunction specifically barring the Respondents from erecting any new structures or buildings on the land, not to cut down any trees or plant any boundaries until the suit is heard and determined
  3. 3.Costs of the application awarded to the winning party at the conclusion of the case

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1-3
  • Limitation of Actions Actsection 7
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 Rules 1-3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Opetu & another v Komwoyo & another (Environment & Land Case E011 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 3680 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3680/eng@2022-06-08

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