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

Super Drill International Limited v Mapi & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E024 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6506 (KLR) (7 October 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KEELC 6506 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
6506
Citation
[2024] KEELC 6506 (KLR)
Decided
7 October 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from a decision by the Learned Senior Principal Magistrate Ngong in ELC Case No. E050 of 2021CoramMN GICHERU
Holding

I find no error on the part of the Learned Magistrate and I dismiss the Appeal with costs.

Facts

The Appellant, Super Drill International Limited, sought an injunction to protect its property, but the Learned Senior Principal Magistrate Ngong discharged the order of injunction on 23/5/2022.

Issues

  1. The trial Magistrate erred in law and/or in fact by issuing Orders that took away Interim Orders despite dismissing the Preliminary Objection
  2. The trial Magistrate erred in law and/or in fact by proceeding to issue other Orders and determine an application that was not before her and without considering the Appellant’s response thereto
  3. The trial Magistrate erred in law and/or in fact by failing to appreciate that LR Nos Kajiado/Ntashart/22550 and Ngong/Ngong/14384 did not share a boundary and as such no dispute between them could exist
  4. The trial Magistrate erred in law and/or in fact by failing to appreciate that the suit parcels did not even fall under the same administration and could not share a boundary and thus bring out a dispute
  5. The trial Magistrate erred in law and/or in fact by ignoring the submissions and evidence of the Appellant that the Respondents were trespassers on its land and not persons sharing a boundary with the Appellant
  6. The trial Magistrate erred in law and/or in fact by failing to appreciate that the 1st and 2nd Respondents could not front a claim over an estate of a deceased person without Letters of Administration
  7. The trial Magistrate erred in law and/or in fact by mis-interpreting the Provision of Section 18 (2) of the Land Registration Act
  8. The trial Magistrate erred in law and/or in fact by discharging the Interim Orders when the court was still seized with the matter and left the Appellant exposed

Reasoning

The Court found that the trial Magistrate did not err in discharging the Interim Order of Injunction and that the suit could no longer be sustained in Court due to lack of jurisdiction.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs

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