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

Philip Ndirangu Karanja v Kimani Muchina & others [2018] KEELC 4628 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4628 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
4628
Citation
[2018] KEELC 4628 (KLR)
Decided
25 January 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeInjunctionPosturePlaintiff seeks injunction against Defendant and others to restrain them from trespassing and erecting structures on the Suit PropertyCoramK. BOR
Holding

The court grants an order of injunction to restrain the Defendant and the youth that he works with from dealing with L.R. No. 36/22/V in Mathare Nairobi pending hearing and determination of the suit.

Facts

The Plaintiff, 90 years old, claims that a group of young men led by the Defendant trespassed on and erected structures on his land in Mathare, Nairobi. The Plaintiff sent emissaries to request the Defendant to stop, but he did not comply. The Defendant claimed to be carrying out a chicken breeding project with other young men.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has a prima facie case against the Defendant and others
  2. Whether the court should grant an injunction to restrain the Defendant and others from dealing with the Suit Property

Reasoning

The court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has a prima facie case against the Defendant and the other persons who have invaded his land and built structures for the chicken breeding project.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded the costs of the application

Orders

  • An order of injunction to restrain the Defendant and the youth that he works with from dealing with L.R. No. 36/22/V in Mathare Nairobi pending hearing and determination of the suit

Remedies

  • Injunction
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 0.0 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case