Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Civil Application 202 of 2010 |
---|---|
Parties: | Paul Mungai Kimani & 20 others v Attorney General & 4 others |
Date Delivered: | 09 Dec 2011 |
Case Class: | Civil |
Court: | Court of Appeal at Nairobi |
Case Action: | Ruling |
Judge(s): | Riaga Samuel Cornelius Omolo, Samuel Elikana Ondari Bosire, Philip Nyamu Waki |
Citation: | Paul Mungai Kimani & 20 others v Attorney General & 4 others [2011] eKLR |
Advocates: | Mr. Ng’ang’a Mr. Mutinda |
Case History: | ((An application for injunction pending lodging, hearing and determination of an intended appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Wendoh, J) delivered on 12th March, 2010 In H.C. Misc. Civil Application No. 1366 of 2005) |
Court Division: | Civil |
County: | Nairobi |
Advocates: | Mr. Ng’ang’a Mr. Mutinda |
History Docket No: | H.C. Misc. Civil Application 1366 of 2005 |
History Judges: | Roseline Pauline Vunoro Wendoh |
History Advocates: | Both Parties Represented |
History County: | Nairobi |
Case Outcome: | Motion allowed |
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 |
The applicants ask us to issue an injunction to maintain the status quo until their appeal shall have been lodged, heard and determined. Mr. Ng’ang’a, who argued their motion before us, urged the Court to maintain that position. We note that the applicants aver that they have been in occupation since the 1970’s and we note that as late as 2000, the Government was recognizing their right to occupy their respective plots on the lands admittedly owned by the Government. Mr. Mutinda opposed the motion on behalf of the respondents and argued that the applicants’ occupation of the land is criminal under section 142 of the Government Lands Act. He, however, did not say what has prevented the Government from bringing criminal charges, if any, against the applicants since the 1970’s.
The applicants are raising, prima facie, serious constitutional matters. They appear to have argued before the High Court that the right to life is guaranteed to every Kenyan by the Constitution, both repealed and the current one, means more than the right to be allowed to live, i.e. to exist. We have also looked at the proposed grounds of appeal contained in both the notice of motion and the affidavit in support thereof. We are satisfied that those grounds cannot be dismissed as being frivolous. We are satisfied the intended appeal is arguable. As to whether the proposed appeal will be rendered nugatory if we refuse to grant the injunction sought, we think that it would be wrong to allow the respondents to alienate, transfer, charge, subdivide the lands which the applicants having occupied for such along time and with the apparent explicit approval of the Government.
It would also be wrong to allow the respondents to demolish the structures erected on the land by the applicants and to in effect evict the applicants. The respondents must continue to wait for the final determination of the proposed appeal.
Accordingly, we allow the motion dated the 16th August, 2010 and lodged in the Court on 17th August, 2010 and grant the order of injunction as prayed for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said motion. Article 23 (3) (b) authorizes courts to grant an order of injunction for the purpose of enforcing the Bill of Rights. The costs of the motion shall be in the appeal.