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

MUKUA TUTUMA v ALEX MUNENE TUTUMA & another [2006] KEHC 1182 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 1182 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1182
Citation
[2006] KEHC 1182 (KLR)
Decided
27 April 2006
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Civil Case 96 of 2006CoramThe presiding judge
Holding

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an injunction and found that the plaintiff had no remedy against the 1st defendant. The court also ruled that the plaintiff should bear the costs of the suit.

Facts

The plaintiff, Mukua Tutuma, sued the 2nd defendant, Alex Munene Tutuma, and Raphaël Kibiru Tutuma for the cancellation of a title registered in the name of the 2nd defendant, so that the title could be sub-divided and registered in equal shares between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The property in issue is L.R. No. 209/8252 (Title No. IR 28156), situated along Lusingeti Road, off Likoni Road, Nairobi. The plaintiff also filed a Chamber Summons seeking interlocutory injunctive relief against the 2nd defendant.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's application for an injunction was properly granted.
  2. Who should bear the costs of the suit.

Reasoning

The court held that the 1st defendant had no role in the plaintiff's claim for a share of the property and that the plaintiff had no prayers in the plaint directed at the 1st defendant. The court also noted that the plaintiff had settled both his application and his claim for a share of the suit property.

Outcome

The plaintiff's application for an injunction was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the suit.

Orders

  • Consent order for the suit premises to be subdivided and shared equally between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Civil Procedure Act
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