Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtAllowed· [2013] KEHC 4704 (KLR)

M'RUTERE M'NGARUNI v M'NGARUNI M'MUGA & 2 others

High Court of Kenya
20 February 2013
PNP. M. Njoroge
168 words in judgment
View original judgment Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An unopposed application for a temporary land injunction can be granted quickly by the High Court of Kenya.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an inter partes hearing of a notice of motion dated 16 July 2012 in a land dispute before P. M. Njoroge J of the High Court. The application sought certification as urgent (which had been granted) and, under prayer (b), an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and employees from entering, cultivating, transferring, disposing of, constructing on, developing or otherwise interfering with plot No. 596 Kiirua/Nkando pending the hearing and determination of the application and the main suit, together with costs. When the application came up on 20 February 2013, all parties were present. Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant asked that the application be allowed on the ground that it had not been opposed. In their replies, the defendants confirmed that they did not oppose the plaintiff's prayer. The court therefore allowed the application in its entirety and awarded costs to the plaintiff. The judgment is a short, unreasoned ruling on an unopposed motion: no merits analysis, no conditions and no terms of the injunction are set out. The main suit over the plot remains to be heard and determined; the order is interlocutory only.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining interference with plot No. 596 Kiirua/Nkando

Holding

The application was allowed as it was unopposed.

Reasoning

The application sought an injunction restraining the respondents from entering, cultivating, transferring, disposing of, constructing on or otherwise interfering with the suit plot pending hearing of the application and the main suit. When heard inter partes, the defendants expressly did not oppose the prayer, and counsel for the plaintiff asked that the application be allowed as unopposed. The court accordingly allowed the application and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An unopposed interlocutory application may be allowed where the respondents do not oppose the relief sought.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's/Applicant's application dated 16th July 2012 is allowed
  2. 2.Costs awarded to the plaintiff
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to grant interlocutory injunctions pending hearing of the main suit (statutory basis not stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "M'RUTERE M'NGARUNI v M'NGARUNI M'MUGA & 2 others", Case Analysis (2013). . Source:

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