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

Jane Wanjeri Muriu v Lummen Enterprises & 2 others [2017] KEELC 2396 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2396 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
2396
Citation
[2017] KEELC 2396 (KLR)
Decided
21 June 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLand DisputePostureApplication for Injunction - Opposition and Counter-ApplicationCoramE.O. OBAGA
Holding

An injunction can only be granted to prevent an event that has not occurred. The applicant's application is granted to restrain the first and second respondents from carrying out further construction on the remaining plots until the suit is heard and determined.

Facts

The deceased, Evans Muriu Chege, was allocated three plots by Lummen Enterprises. The applicant, Jane Wanjeri Muriu, is the administrator of the deceased's estate. Construction was ongoing on Plot No. 16/7340/98, Plot No. 17/7340/98, and Plot No. 23/7340/98, which were sold to the third respondent. The applicant sought an injunction to stop further construction.

Issues

  1. Whether injunction orders can be issued to affect all respondents
  2. Whether the event of construction on the plots has already taken place

Reasoning

The court finds that the event of construction on the plots has not occurred, and thus an injunction can be issued. The third respondent's purchase of one plot is not contested.

Outcome

Injunction granted

Orders

  • Injunction restraining the first and second respondents from carrying out further construction on Plot Nos. 16/7340/98 and Plot No. 17/7340/98 pending the hearing and determination of the suit

Remedies

  • Costs of the application to be borne by the first and second respondents
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