Peter Ochieng Okore v Bishop George Barack & 2 others

structures removed on the suit land as whoever was constructing them didn’t have its approval. The 3rd defendant didn’t exhibit any document showing that it had granted the suit land to the plaintiff. I have perused the pleadings herein together with the able submissions by the respective counsels. What is apparent is that the plaintiffs are the current registered owners of the suit property. The 1st and 2nd defendants are not. It is further clear that the 2nd defendant requested for land for purposes of conducting their worship from the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant acknowledged their request but its response was that their request was being considered. It appears equally from the pleadings as well as the submission by the counsel that the defendants are already in occupation of the suit premise. The principles of granting a temporary injunction are now well settled, namely:(a) (b) (c) If a prima facie case has bee established. If irreparable loss shall be suffered that damages cannot be an adequate compensation. If in doubt on a balance of convenience. See Giella =vs= Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] E. A. 358 I am persuaded that a prima facie case has been established by the plaintiffs herein. They are the current legitimate holders of the title. Under the provisions of Section 27 and 28 of the Registered Land Act Chapter 300, their title is indefeasible unless by fraud or misrepresentation. At the moment none of the defendants is alleging that the plaintiffs fraudulently obtained the title. In fact the 3rd defendant is disassociating itself from the 1st and 2nd defendants. The 3rd defendant case is that it never granted permission or authority to the defendants to occupy the land. As a matter of fact its letter date 29th September 2010 is written to a stranger. The balance of convenient tilts in the plaintiff favour. The defendants are mere trespassers. They were not permitted by the plaintiffs least of all the 3rd defendants to occupy the plaintiff parcel of land. They cannot therefore be allowed to use the land save with the plaintiffs permission. This court cannot aid their illegal trespass. It has been alleged by the 3rd defendant that according to records from lands office the title deed is registered in the names of one Manoham Singh Chawlan. The said person has not come forth to claim such ownership. In any event that is an issue left fro trial. For the foregoing reasons I shall order that:(a) Pending the hearing and determination of this suit there be a temporary injunction against the defendants, their agents, representatives, assigns or any other person acting through their direction from trespassing, conducting prayers upon the land, destroying fence, destroying property or in any way interfering with the plaintiffs parcel number Kisumu Municipality Block 12/ 118. (b) Cost of this application to the plaintiff. Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 29th of February 2012 H. K. CHEMITEI JUDGE In the presence of: ……………………………………………Advocate for Applicant

page 2 of 3

……………………………………............……. for Respondent

page 3 of 3