Oganyo (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Onyango Olwalo) v Ouma (Environment & Land Case E036 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 467 (KLR)

the authority or consent of the estate of the deceased entered the suit property and put up a structure thereon. 4 The Plaintifi has averred that the said acts of the Defendant are illegal and amount to trespass. The Plaintifi has averred that unless restrained by the court, the Defendant will continue with the acts of trespass complained of. 5 The application was served upon the defendant who did not respond to it. When the application came up for hearing on 6th February 2025, the Defendant appeared in court and told the court that he had already moved out of the suit property and had no objection to the orders sought being granted. The plaintifi’s application is in the circumstances unopposed. That notwithstanding, I am not inclined to grant all the reliefs sought by the Plaintifi. I am of the view that on the facts and the material before me at this stage, what will serve the interest of justice is to restore and maintain the status quo that was prevailing before the Defendant entered the suit property, pending the hearing and determination of the suit. I find no basis for the order of inhibition sought by the Plaintifi. It is not clear to the court whether the suit property has been registered since neither a copy of the tile nor a certificate of search has been produced. If the property has not been registered, it would not be possible to register an inhibition against its title since the register will not be in existence. 6 It is also not necessary to involve the Police in the dispute at this stage. The Plaintifi is at liberty to move the court to commit the Defendant to prison if he disobeys the orders of the court. 7 For the foregoing reasons, I hereby make the following orders in the Plaintifi’s application; 1. A temporary Injunction is issued restraining the Defendant by himself or through his agents, servants, employees or anyone claiming through him from trespassing, fencing, constructing on or otherwise interfering with the Plaintifi’s quiet possession and enjoyment of all that parcel of land known as Nyando/Wawidhi “A” 1/1346 situated in South East Kano, Kisumu County pending the hearing and determination of the suit. 2. The costs of the application to be in the cause. DELIVERED AND DATED AT KISUMU ON THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 S. OKONG’O JUDGE Ruling delivered virtually through Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing Platform in the presence of: Ms. Shelmith for the Plaintifi The Defendant in person Ms. J.Omondi-Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/467/eng@2025-02-10 2

page 2 of 2