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

Jude Thadeus Ragot v China Overseas Engineering Group Co Ltd & another [2016] KEELC 1048 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 1048 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1048
Citation
[2016] KEELC 1048 (KLR)
Decided
16 March 2016
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeInterlocutory InjunctionPostureApplication for Interlocutory InjunctionCoramEngineer, SM. KIBUN, SM. KIBUN, SM. KIBJUNA
Holding

The court dismissed the application and directed the parties to maintain the existing status quo for 30 days.

Facts

The Applicant, Jude Thadeus Ragot, sought an injunction to restrain the 2nd Respondent, China Overseas Engineering Group Co Ltd, and the Kenya National Highways Authority from demolishing a perimeter fence surrounding his land. The fence was on the road reserve and the Applicant claimed it was not encroaching.

Issues

  1. Whether the fence erected by the Applicant encroaches into the road reserve
  2. Who should handle the boundary dispute between the Applicant and the road authority

Reasoning

The court found that the fence was not encroaching onto the road reserve and that the road project was of public importance. The court weighed the interests of the Applicant and the public and decided that the wider public good would be better served by allowing the road project to proceed.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 14th October 2014 is dismissed with costs
  • The court on its own motion directs the parties to maintain the existing status quo for 30 days

Remedies

  • None

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Land Registered Act No.3 of 2012
Cases cited (2)
  • Giella -V- Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] E.A 358
  • Veronicah Waithira, Trustee of Inter-Christian Churches & 3 Others -V- Kenya National Highways Authority [2014] eKLR
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