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

Johnbosco kisome Mutisya & 8 others v Gabriel Mulemba [2021] KEELC 4382 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 4382 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
4382
Citation
[2021] KEELC 4382 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeInterlocutory InjunctionPostureAppeal from a decision granting an interlocutory injunctionCoramGacheru, KLR Gacheru, Mutungi
Holding

The court denied the application for an interlocutory injunction.

Facts

The defendant is the registered owner of land parcel Matuu/Ikaatini/676. Plaintiffs claim adverse possession for more than 12 years, seeking to have the defendant's title extinguished and to be registered as rightful owners. The defendant seeks an injunction to prevent Plaintiffs from interfering with the property.

Issues

  1. Whether an interlocutory injunction should issue to prevent Plaintiffs from excavating, digging, making bricks, constructing, cutting trees, sub-dividing, selling, and interfering with the property.
  2. Whether the Plaintiffs have a prima facie case for adverse possession and the defendant's title has been extinguished.

Reasoning

The court found that the Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case for adverse possession and that the defendant's title had not been extinguished. The court also considered the balance of convenience and the practical effect of granting the injunction.

Outcome

The application for an interlocutory injunction was denied.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Limitation of Actions Act
  • Land Registration Act
Cases cited (3)
  • Mrao vs. First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others
  • Fessenden vs. Higgs and Hill Ltd
  • NWL Limited v. Woods
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case