Omayo (Suing as the administrator ad litem and/or personal representative of the Estate of Alfred Cheruiyot Langat (Deceased)) v Sinei & another (Sued as the administrators and/or personal representative of Sarah Cherono Chesimet (Deceased))
The bottom line
#A Kericho court froze a family land dispute as it was, letting a widow keep farming her portion until the full case is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case for interlocutory injunction
The Applicant established a prima facie case, given her claim of adverse possession of 2 acres and the unappealed Tribunal award adopted as judgment in her favour
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, the court found the Applicant's adverse possession claim over 2 acres, coupled with the Kipkelion Land Disputes Tribunal award adopted as judgment in Kericho CM's Court Misc Application No. 32 of 2011 and never appealed from, established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
Whether irreparable harm and balance of convenience favoured granting relief
The court saw no harm in preserving the existing state of affairs, holding the orders sought would maintain and freeze the status quo
The court noted it was not required to determine the merits at the interlocutory stage. Since it was not disputed the Applicant was utilising part of the suit land, preserving the existing state of affairs carried the lower risk of injustice and assisted case management pending full hearing.
Legal principles established
#- In land matters, status quo orders should always be issued for purposes of preserving the subject matter
- The court has leeway and discretion to order maintenance of status quo until determination of the case
Court orders
#- 1.An order of status quo issued to be maintained by all parties, the Plaintiff/Applicant remaining in possession of the portion of land in parcel LR No. Kericho/Chesinende/244 that she occupied at the time of filing the Originating Summons
- 2.No further trespass, chasing away of the Applicant or her sons, removal of cows from the grazing field, ploughing of the farm by the Respondents or interference with the parcel
- 3.Status quo to be maintained until the matter is finally heard and determined
- 4.Costs of the application dated 29th September 2021 to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 21, 22, 27, 28, 30 and 40 of the Constitution; Sections 7, 17, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22); Order 37 and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omayo (Suing as the administrator ad litem and/or personal representative of the Estate of Alfred Cheruiyot Langat (Deceased)) v Sinei & another (Sued as the administrators and/or personal representative of Sarah Cherono Chesimet (Deceased))", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Suit E005 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/14761/eng@2022-11-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.