Environment & Land Case 574 of 2017

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Environment & Land Case 574 of 2017
Parties:	Kana & another v Director of Survey & 3 others
Date Delivered:	03 Nov 2022
Case Class:
Court:	Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	Lucy Ngima Mbugua
Citation:	Kana & another v Director of Survey & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 574 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 14657 (KLR) (3 November 2022) (Ruling)
Advocates:	Were for Plaintiffs, Allan Kamau for Defendant, Kurgat holding brief for Peter Wanyama for 4th Defendant
Court Division:	Environment and Land
County:	Nairobi
Advocates:	Were for Plaintiffs, Allan Kamau for Defendant, Kurgat holding brief for Peter Wanyama for 4th Defendant
Disclaimer:	The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

Kana & another v Director of Survey & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 574 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 14657 (KLR) (3 November 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 14657 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Environment & Land Case 574 of 2017

LN Mbugua, J

November 3, 2022

Between

Lalit Baba Kana

1^st Plaintiff

Manjula Lalit Kana

2^nd Plaintiff

and

Director of Survey

1^st Defendant

Chief Land Registrar

2^nd Defendant

Attorney General

3^rd Defendant

Hafaya Construction Company Limited

4^th Defendant

Ruling

1.Before me is an application dated 7.6.2022 where the plaintiff seeks orders that Hafaya Construction Company Limited be made a 4^th Defendant in this suit; that orders be issued restraining the Defendants and the proposed 4^th Defendant from interfering with the suit premises being L.R. NO. 1870/1/451 and L.R. NO. 1870/1/452 and that the applicant be allowed to amend their pleadings accordingly. The applicant also prays for costs.

2.The grounds in support of the application are that the 4^th defendant has issued an illegal and unlawful notice to the Plaintiffs’ employees guarding the suit premises to vacate that land, yet the Plaintiffs are the legal and registered owners of the suit premises and have been in possession of the same since the time of purchase in 1981 and 1983 respectively.

3.The applicant avers that it would be in the interest of justice to issue the orders sought herein to safeguard the Plaintiffs’ interest and right to his property.

4.I perused an affidavit of service dated 11.10.2022 which indicates that the respondents including the proposed 4^th defendants were all duly served, but none had filed a response to the application as at 18.10.2022. However, the proposed 4^th defendant expressed its desire to oppose the application of which the court indulged them. To this end, the said party has filed a replying affidavit dated 25.10.2022 sworn by its executive director one Hassan Mohamedd Abdi.

5.The deponent avers that they are the registered owners of the suit parcels LR No. 1870/1/620 and LR No. 1870/1/621 and that was the reason as to why they issued a notice to the plaintiffs to vacate the said land. The deponent has gone ahead to give a detailed account of their claim of ownership of the suit parcels emphasizing that the electronic searches revealed that they are the owners of the said land. He also added that they are the ones who pay the land rent and land rates relating to the suit parcels. As such they have every legal right to evict the plaintiff from the land.

6.I have considered all the arguments raised herein. This is a situation whereby each protagonist is waving a title to assert their claim of ownership of the suit parcels. The proposed party has however issued an eviction notice against the plaintiffs. I find that the restraining orders sought by the plaintiffs are in the realm of injunctive orders.

7.In the case of Paul Gitonga Wanjau v Gathuthi Tea Factory Company Ltd & 2 others [2016] eKLR, the court held that;“An injunction is an equitable remedy, meaning the court hearing the application has discretion in making a decision on whether or not to grant the application. The court will consider if it is fair and equitable to grant the injunction, taking all the relevant facts into consideration.” .

8.In the case of John Obare v Moses Adagala [2016] eKLR, the court stated that;“even though the court is not expected at this interlocutory stage to make conclusive findings of facts and the law, the evidence so far availed shows there is need to maintain the status quo obtaining at the stage of filing these proceedings to enable the status of the suit property, be it plot 399A, 399D or 399 remains unchanged as the parties litigate on the issues before the court”.

9.Similarly, this court cannot deal with conflicted issues of facts at the interlocutory stage, thus the court cannot delve into the question of the validities of the titles in this application. I also find that the proposed party can only articulate his claims of ownership of the suit property when he is a party to these proceedings.

10.In the circumstances, I find that it is only fair and just that status quo be maintained until the substantive issues in dispute are determined. I therefore find that the application dated 7/6/2022 is merited, the same is allowed but the costs thereof shall abide the outcome of the suit. The amended plaint is to be filed and served along with Summons to Enter appearance within 14 days.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Were for PlaintiffsAllan Kamau for DefendantKurgat holding brief for Peter Wanyama for Proposed 4^th DefendantCourt assistant: Eddel

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Case Search

Environment & Land Case 574 of 2017

Case Metadata

Please enter advanced search options