Kengen Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme v Weyilley Investments Limited & another; Pegi Company Limited (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E009 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 3853 (KLR)

i. The subject land is located within Malindi Town, near Ocean Beach Resort and Spa, ofi Golf Beach Road. The property is next to Kijani Suites Apartments. Status ii. The land in dispute has marking Y6 to Y8. The Interested Party’s property, Y4, is the first property that one approaches from the road. The Defendant’s property is adjacent to the Interested Party’s property and this is where the dispute lies. This property is accessible through a black metallic gate which is owned by the Defendants. iii. The Plaintifi’s property is adjacent to the Defendant’s property. The Plaintifi accesses its property through a temporary gate made of iron sheets. iv. The demolished stone wall is stated to have been constructed by the Plaintifi. The wall separates the property owned by the Interested Party and the contested property which the Defendant lays claim. According to the Plaintifi, the wall is rightfully within its land. The debris from the stone wall shows that it extended from the main entrance all through leading to the beach. v. There are posts that separate the Defendant’s and the Plaintifi’s property. These posts were put up by the Defendant. vi. Inside the Defendants’ property there is a pit latrine whose construction is disputed by the Plaintifi and the Defendants. There are concrete posts on the Defendants’ property which they claim marks the boundary of their property. Conclusion vii. The suit land claimed by the Plaintifis and the Interested Party overlaps the Defendants’ property. 6. From the report what emerges is that there seems to be either a boundary or ownership dispute because each of the parties claims ownership of the suit property or encroachment which will require experts to resolve. 7. At this point then, it will be dificult to cite and subsequently punish for contempt and or issue injunctive orders as proposed by the applicants. The best the court can do is to order for “the status quo” as obtained on the ground- each party to stick to its portion until this matter is heard and determined. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI VIRTUALLY ON THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2024. E. K. MAKORI JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Wafula for the Applicant Mr. Gitonga for the Defendants Court Clerk: Happy https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3853/eng@2024-04-24 2

page 2 of 3

In the absence of: Ms. Bujra for the Interested Party. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3853/eng@2024-04-24 3

page 3 of 3