Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Margrove Investments Limited v Attorney General National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Case 103 of 2009 MARGROVE INVESTMENTS LIMITED ... PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL NATIONAL WATER CONSERVATION & PIPELINE CORPORATION .................DEFENDANTS ********************** RULING Before court is the Applicants chamber summons dated 7th April 2009 seeking interlocutory mandatory orders in respect of LR NO. MN/VI/3615 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). I have carefully considered submissions both for and in opposition to this present application. I have also carefully read the annexed affidavits. It is my considered opinion that the interests of justice would be best served by maintaining the status quo pending the full hearing and determination of this suit. As such I do hereby partially grant the prayers in this present application and order as follows:(1) THAT the 2nd Defendant whether by itself and/or its agents and/or servants and/or employees and/or any person claiming under the 2nd Defendant in any manner whatsoever and howsoever be restrained from alienating, transferring charging, leasing and/or sub-dividing in any way whatsoever all that parcel of land known as LR NO. MN/VI/3615 together with all buildings and developments thereon until the hearing and final determination of this suit. (2) Costs in the cause. Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 6th day of August 2009. M. ODERO JUDGE Read in open court in the presence of: Mrs. Kawere for Plaintiff/Applicant Ms. Ngugi for 2nd Defendant/Respondent No appearance for Attorney General M. ODERO JUDGE 6.8.2009

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.