SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Stephen Mwaka Mbuvi v Patrick Mutuku Mbovi [2014] KEELC 165 (KLR)

[2014] KEELC 165 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
165
Citation
[2014] KEELC 165 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil SuitPostureApplication for joinder of an interested party, temporary prohibitory injunction, and order of specific performanceCoramP. NYAMWEYA
Holding

The court denied Mugo's application to be joined as an interested party and to be granted a temporary prohibitory injunction and an order of specific performance.

Facts

Paul Githinji Mugo seeks to be joined as an interested party in the suit against Patrick Mutuku Mbovi. He claims to be the bona fide purchaser of the suit property (Ndithini/Manaja Block 5/11) from Mbovi for Kshs.4,000,000/=, and seeks an injunction, temporary prohibitory injunction, and an order of specific performance.

Issues

  1. whether Mugo should be joined as an interested party
  2. whether Mugo should be granted a temporary prohibitory injunction
  3. whether Mugo should be granted an order of specific performance

Reasoning

The court found that Mugo's interests were already addressed by Order 24(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and that he was not a bona fide purchaser.

Outcome

The application was dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to join Mugo as an interested party was dismissed.
  • The application for a temporary prohibitory injunction was dismissed.
  • The application for an order of specific performance was dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (1)
  • Super Marine Handling Services Ltd vs Commissioner General, Kenya Revenue Authority, (2002) 2 KLR 758
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case