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

Environment and Land Division v M’maingi Etharamburi

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU ENVIRONMENT AND LAND DIVISION CIVIL SUIT NO 101 OF 2012 CECILIA KAMBURA MUKINDIA ......................................1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT SALESIO IRITE M’MUKINDIA ........................................2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT VERSUS M’MAINGI ETHARAMBURI.........................................DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT RULING This application is dated 21/09/2015 and seeks the following orders:1. THAT this application be certified as extremely urgent and the same be heard as a matter of urgency and priority. 2. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue orders of temporary injunction, restraining the defendant, his agents, representations, workers employees, family members and/or anyone else working at his behest, restraining them from building, working on, tilling and interfering with the applicants user of land parcels LR No. RUIRI/RWARERA/5088 and 5089 pending the hearing and determination of this application. 3. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue orders of temporary injunction, restraining the defendant, his agents, representatives, workers, employees, family members and/or anyone else working at his behest , restraining them 4. from building , working on, tilling and interfering with the applicants user of land parcels LR. No. RUIRI/RWARERA/5088 and 5089 pending the hearing and determination of this suit. 5. THAT costs for and incidental to this application be borne by the respondent. It has the following grounds:i. THAT the 1st applicant was the registered owner of land parcel No. RUIRI/RWARERA/5088 as at the time of filing this suit and has since acquired land parcel No. RUIRI/RWARERA/5089 by transmission upon completion of Meru High Court Succession Cause No. 26 of 2008. ii. THAT the respondent is a mere trespasser who has no known claim or interest over the material parcels of lands. iii. THAT the respondent has now embarked on unfettered development of permanent structures on the material parcel of land to lay basis for future claim on occupation. iv. THAT the applicants have established prima-facie case with high chances of success.

page 1 of 2

During interpartes hearing on 19/10/2015, Mr. Mutegi holding brief for Mr. Gichunge told the Court that since the respondent was not in Court the application should be allowed. I allow the application in terms of prayer 3. Costs shall be in the cause. Delivered in Meru this 19th day of October, 2015 in the presence of:CC: Daniel/Lilian Mutegi for the Applicant P. M. NJOROGE JUDGE

page 2 of 2

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.