DAVID MWANGI GITAU v DOMIIC NJENGA KARUTHI [2012] KEHC 3966 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

HCCC NO 16 OF 2011 (O/S)

DAVID MWANGI GITAU……………………................................………...............……………………PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

DOMIIC NJENGA KARUTHI……………………..............................................………….…………DEFENDANT

R U L I N G

The applicant has broughtan originating   summons for a declaration that by adverse possession he has acquired title to KIJABE/KIJABE BLOCK1/2787,and therefore ought to be registered as the owner.

Subsequently he has brought the instant motion for a temporary order of injunction to restrain   the respondent from entering, ploughing,erecting structures or in any way interfering with the his (applicant’s) peaceful and quiet possession of the suit property until the   originating summons is determined.

It is the applicant’s contention   that as a member of Maai Mahiu Kijabe Longonot Co Ltd, now dissolved, he was allocate the suit property on 8th February 1984; that he has since been in occupation until the 2007/2008 post election violence when his house was destroyed. In August 2010 the applicant visited the Land Registry at Naivasha and was surprised to find that the suit property was registered in the name of the respondent. After he filed the originating summons he applied to effect service of pleadings on the respondent by way of a newspaper advertisement. Thereafter on 20th December, 2011 the respondent   through the firm of Creswell , Mann & Dod Advocates entered appearance and at the same time, the respondent invaded the suitproperty, erected structures and began to plough it. The applicant had deposed   that having been on the suit property since 1984   he was entitled to be registered   the owner  by operation of the law of adverse possession. He further argued that the respondent has never been on the suitproperty.

In response the respondent had maintained   that he   purchased the property   in March 1994, was issued   with a title   deed and thereafter took possession   by planting a hedge around it; that when he took possession the property was vacant and further   that the applicant has never lived on the property. After purchasing the property and planting a hedge the respondent allowed Alphaxad   Ngugi Wanjagi to cultivate it between 1999 and 2007. The applicant took over the property and himself cultivated it between 2008 and 2009.

Alphaxad Ngugi Wanjagi has sworn an affidavit   confirming that indeed he cultivated the property with  the respondent’s permission upto 2007 as explained by the respondent in his affidavit. He asserted that the property was vacant during this period. Another neighbour of the respondent, oneKimani Kiburo   has also deposed in another   affidavit   that he has been in occupation of the neighbouring property, No.KIJABE/KIJABE BLOCK1/2786 since 1991 andonly moved out during   the 2007/2008 post election violence period   butleft his son behind; that he had settled on his property when   the respondent purchased his in 1994.

A temporary injunction will be granted at the discretion   of the court where it is proved by affidavit or  otherwise, interalia, that a property the subject of a suit   is in danger of beingwasted, damaged or alienated by any of the parties to a dispute, or is about to be wrongfully   sold in execution of a decree.

The applicant must show on a prima facie basis thathe is entitled to the property in question; that the damage he stands to suffer is substantial and cannot be compensated by an award of damages. But should the court be in doubt , it must decide the dispute on a balance   of convenience .See Guella Vrs Cassman Brown.

There are two opposing positions with regard to the ownership   or possession of the suit    property. The applicant  contends   that the property   was allocated to him in 1984 by a company in which he was a member; that from that period to date, save for 2007/2008 post election violence, hehas been   in occupation of the suit property.

The   respondent , whose evidence is that he purchased the property in 1994, has maintained that when he purchased it nobody was in occupation. He has either been cultivating to himself or leased it   to a third party. What is critical at this stage is not the merit or demerit of either   party’s case. Strength or weakness of a party’s case can only  be tested at the trial. But before that stage is reached the court must ascertain from the evidence presented in affidavit evidence whether the  applicant has a prima facie case as defined in theMrao LimitedV. First American Bank of Kenya Limited(2003) KLR 125so as to preserve the property before the determination the dispute on merit. The applicant has filed a claim  by way of an originating summons to the effect that having been in possession of the property since 1984 he is entitled to it; that the subsequent   purchase by the respondent in 1994 did not interrupt   that possession; that even afterpurchasing the property the respondent   has taken over   17 years to assert his proprietary  right, and only upon being   prompted by this suit . the   applicant has annexed copies of a receipt and voting card issued to   him in 1984 by Maai Mahiu Kijabe Longonot Co. Ltd in respect   of plot   No.2787, the same number as the suit   property.

At the trial the court will have opportunity to test this evidence, but at this stage, it remains a prima facie evidence that the applicant  is presently using the property and will suffer great   prejudice and substantial   loss should this application be dismissed.

Before his claim in the originating summons is determined the balance of convenience is to maintain the status quo. For these reasons the application is allowed in terms of paragraph 3 of  the notice of motion dated 28th December 2011. Costs to be in the cause .

Datedand delivered at Nakuru this 21st Day of May 2012.

W OUKO

JUDGE

Miss Mpaka forApplicant

Mr Githua for respondent

Court Clerk :Patricia