Charles Machuki Lwanga Ayoka & Mary Perpetua Ayora v Margaret Tamining Naisuru [2013] KEHC 5492 (KLR)

REPUBLIC   OF  KENYA

IN THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  KENYA  AT  NAKURU

E.L.C  304 OF  2013

CHARLES  MACHUKI LWANGA AYOKA......…1ST  PLAINTIFF

MARY PERPETUA AYORA……………………2ND  PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

MARGARET  TAMINING  NAISURU………..…DEFENDANT

R U L I N G

By  a  notice   of  motion  dated  15th  April, 2013 the  Applicants/plaintiffs Charles  Machuki Lwanga  Ayora  and  Mary Perpetua   Ayora  seek the following orders   among others: an  injunction restraining  the defendant whether by  herself, her family, her  agents, servants or  persons  acting  on her behalf and  or  other  persons  that  are   registered  owners of  all the  property  known  as Nakuru/Ngongongeri/23 ( the suit  land) from entering, trespassing, occupying erecting  any  structures thereon, cultivating  disposing  of  or  interfering  with the  plaintiff’s   quiet  possession and  enjoyment  of  the  suit  land   pending  the  hearing  and determination  of this  suit.

The  application  is  premised  on the grounds on the face  of  the  application and  a supporting   affidavit sworn  by  Charles Ayura, the  1st   plaintiff on his own  behalf and  on behalf  of the 2nd  plaintiff sworn on  15th  April  2013.

The  applicants  case is  that  they are the  registered joint  owners  of  the  suit land  having   purchased the  same from Michael Cherop and  were issued with a title  deed  on 30th July 2007 in their joint names;  That in  February, 2013 when the 1st applicant  wanted to  cultivate the suit land he was informed  that  the  Defendant was claiming  ownership of the suit land, had  erected  a temporary  shelter  and  was also  cultivating the  suit  land: That  he  sought help  from the  police who  asked both parties to  produce  proof of  ownership  but the  Defendant did not have any documents: That upon conducting  a search the applicants confirmed that  the suit land  was still registered in  their  names : That  the  Defendant does  not  have  a genuine claim to the  property and  is  only trying   to  use  unorthodox  means  to  forcefully take  possession of the suit land.

The Defendant Margaret  Tamining  Naisuru swore  a  replying   affidavit  on 30th  May, 2013.  She strenuously opposed the application and gave a background account of the ownership of the suit  land. She  deponed that she belongs to the  Ogiek  community  and  had been  living  on the suit  land  prior to 1996   when  survey  was done and the suit land  allocated  to  her:  That  her  name was entered  in a register  which  the  provincial surveyor  used to  settle  them: That she  has been cultivating the suit  land  since 1996  until  February, 2013 when  the  plaintiff  attempted to  violently  evict her from the  suit  land:  That  even  if  she  had  not  been allocated  the  suit  land, she  had  acquired  the same by  adverse  possession.

I  have read and considered  the pleadings  filed by the  respective  parties, the affidavit evidence adduced  in support  thereof  and the submissions by  counsels.

The application herein being for a temporary  injunction, the burden  is on the  applicants to satisfy  the  conditions  set down  in  Giella  V Cassman Brown &  Co Ltd. (EA) 358, namely that they  have  a prima facie  case  with a probability  of  success,  that unless  an  injunction  is granted,  they might otherwise suffer injury which  cannot  adequately be compensated  by  an award of  damages; and should  the  court be  in doubt, it will determine  the matter on a balance  of  convenience.

The applicants case is that  being  the  registered  owners  of  the  suit  land, their  interest is indefeasible. Their aforementioned  contention is based on  Section 27 and 28  of  the  Registered  land Act,  Chapter  300 laws  of  Kenya  (repealed). The  sections provides:-

“(27) Subject   to this  Act-

(a) the registration of a person as the  proprietor  of  land shall vest  in that  person  the absolute ownership  of that  land together with all rights and  privileges   belonging  or appurtenant thereto;

(b)……………………………………………

28. The right   of  a proprietor, whether acquired on first  registration or whether  acquired  subsequently  for  valuable consideration  or by an  order  of  court, shall not  be liable  to be defeated  except  as  provided in  this Act, and shall  be  held  by the  proprietor, together with all privileges and appurtenances belonging thereto, free  from  all  other interests  and  claims  whatsoever, but  subject-

(a)   to the lease, charges and other encumbrances and to the conditions and  restrictions,  if any, shown in the register; and

(b)   unless the contrary  is expressed  in the register, to such  liabilities, rights and  interests  as  affect the same  and  are  declared  by section 30  not  to require Noting on the  register……..''

From the affidavit evidence presented before this court, there is no doubt that the defendant is in possession of the suit property. It is also noteworthy, that despite the defendant’s claim of adverse possession she has adduced no evidence to prove those assertions.

Failure to adduce evidence to prove such assertions is clearly in contravention of  Section 107 of the Evidence Act (Cap 80) laws of Kenya which provides:-

“Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove those facts exists.”

Whereas the defendant has not adduced any evidence of ownership, it is common ground that she is in occupation. From the affidavit evidence, it is clear that she took possession when Section 30(g) of the Registered Land Act (now repealed) was in force. The rights of a person in possession or actual occupation of land to which the person is entitled in right only of such possession or occupation are protected.

Whereas the applicants are the registered owners of the suit property, have established a prima facie case with a probability of success and the balance of convenience  tilts in their favour, granting the injunction as sought will amount to the respondent being evicted at an interlocutory stage. As this is never the intention of any court , See  Yego  V  Tuiya &  another 91986) KLR 726  where the  Court  of Appeal  held:-

“the order of the judge requiring the  appellant  to deliver up vacant possession of the land exceeded the terms of the respondents’ application,  and under the civil procedure  Rules order XXXIX Rule  1, this was not  a proper  thing  to do.”

Also  see  Esso (K) Ltd V. Mark Makwata Okiya civil appeal No. 69  of  1991 where  the court of Appeal  held:-

“the purpose  of Injunction is  to  maintain  status quo.  Injunctions  are  not  to be  granted if the event  meant to be restrained  has taken place; and  courts  should  not  grant orders  not  prayed for.”

And the subject matter of this suit being land,  I find that the respondent might otherwise suffer irreparable injury if the orders sought are granted as prayed. l will allow the plaintiff’s application dated 15/4/2013  with costs in the following terms; an  injunction restraining  the defendant whether by herself, her family, her  agents, servants or  persons  acting  on her behalf from further construction , cultivation, planting or disposal  of the  suit land is granted pending the hearing and determination  of this  suit.

Dated, Signed and delivered in open Court at  Nakuru this   26th   day of  July  2013.

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr  Itabo for  Applicants

Ms  Ayuma holding  brief for  Mrs  Ndeda  for Respondent

Stephen  Mwangi  : Court  Clerk