Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Civil Suit 378 of 2010|
|Parties:||SOROYA INVESTMENTS LTD v CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI|
|Date Delivered:||08 Dec 2010|
|Court:||High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)|
|Judge(s):||Hannah Magondi Okwengu|
|Citation:||SOROYA INVESTMENTS LTD v CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI  eKLR|
|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|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
CIVIL SUIT (ELC) NO.378 OF 2010
CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI.......................................................................................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
· That this honourable court be pleased to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondent either by itself, its agents, representatives, employees or any other trespasser or persons claiming under him or under similar claim, from entering upon, trespassing, alienating, encumbering, developing, and/or in any other manner dealing within or in all those property known as L.R No.209/12317 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
· That the costs and incidentals to this application be provided for.
3. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant’s Managing Director, Mohamed Yunis Soroya on 3rd August, 2010. In his affidavit, Soroya reiterates that the applicant purchased the suit property. The respondent has now encroached on the suit property and commenced construction. The applicant admits that the respondent filed a suit against it for arrears of rates but maintains that the suit was substantially compromised by payment of Kshs.2 million.
5. I have carefully considered the application before me. The applicant has produced prima facie evidence showing that it is the registered owner of the suit premises. The applicant has also demonstrated that there is construction going on, on the suit property, which construction has not been sanctioned by the applicant, who is the registered proprietor. The applicant has further demonstrated that the defendant has authorized a third party to carry out construction on the suit property. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant has established a prima facie case. It is evident that unless the orders of interlocutory injunction are granted, the applicant will suffer irreparable loss as the suit property will be interfered with.
Dated and delivered this 8th day of December, 2010
H. M. OKWENGU