Maritim v Tele (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 13 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6443 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court protected a man who occupied land for over 20 years, barring its sale or transfer until his ownership claim is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
The court found the Applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with probability of success based on the sale agreements, possession and evidence of encroachment
The Applicant attached copies of land sale agreements, maps and photographs showing trees cut down. The Respondent admitted the Applicant was in possession. On this material the court concluded that the Applicant had sufficiently demonstrated a right apparently infringed, warranting an explanation or rebuttal from the Respondent, and therefore a prima facie case existed.
Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable injury not compensable in damages and where the balance of convenience lies
The court accepted that over twenty years of occupation and substantial developments placed the suit property in danger of waste, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting injunctive relief
Applying Pius Kipchirchir Kogo vs Frank Kimeli Tenai on irreparable injury and balance of convenience, the court noted the Applicant had occupied the land for over twenty years, built a home and planted crops, and was apprehensive the property would be wasted. The court held the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.
Whether an order of inhibition should issue over LR No. Kericho/Roret/1508
The court issued an inhibition under Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act to preserve the suit property pending trial
Relying on Dorcas Muthoni & 2 Others vs Michael Ireri Ngari as cited in Daniel Gitau Kuria v Muthoni Mbugua Ndumo & 3 others, the court held that an inhibition bars the registered owner from registering dealings over disputed property and preserves it pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The Respondent did not address this issue in submissions.
Legal principles established
#- Conditions for grant of a temporary injunction are a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience
- An order of inhibition under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act is similar to a prohibitory injunction and preserves disputed property pending trial
- Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court for good reason directs otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, their agents and/or servants, from selling, sub-dividing, charging, transferring, encroaching on and/or interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet possession of 1.55 acres of land comprised in LR No. Kericho/Roret/1508 pending the hearing and determination of this suit
- 2.An order of inhibition restraining any dealings, registration and transactions whatsoever over that land parcel known as LR No. Kericho/Roret/1508 pending the hearing and determination of this suit
- 3.The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maritim v Tele (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 13 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6443 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Originating Summons dated 6th December, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6443/eng@2024-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.