Gregory D. Mutangili (suing as the personal representative of the estate of the late Daniel Mutangili v Cosmas Mului Muumbi, Christopher K. Mbina & Joseph M. Maingi [2018] KEELC 2784 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF  KENYA

IN  THE  ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT

AT MAKUENI

ELC  NO. 45 OF 2017

GREGORY D.  MUTANGILI

(suing as the personal representative  of the estate of the late

DANIEL  MUTANGILI..................................................... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

COSMAS  MULUI MUUMBI.....1ST DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER  K. MBINA....2ND  DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT

JOSEPH M. MAINGI...............3RD  DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT

RULING

1) The notice of motion application for ruling is the one dated  27th  March, 2017 and filed in court on the 28th March, 2017. It is  expressed to be brought  under order  40 Rule 1 and  2 of the Civil  Procedure  Rules   2010  and Section  3A of the Civil  Procedure   Act of the  Laws of Kenya  and all enabling  provisions of  the law   for orders :-

I.  Spent

II. Spent

III. Pending   the hearing  and final determination  of the suit herein, the Honorable Court be pleased to issue  a temporary injunction against the Defendants, their  agents, servants and/or representatives from entering, taking possession, and /or in any other manner interfering with Plot Number  17 within Kilome Market   within  Kilungu Sub County.

IV.   Pending  the hearing and determination of the suit herein,  the Honourable Court do issue a mandatory injunction for the removal  of the Defendants form Plot  Number  17 Kilome Market.

V. The  orders  herein   be enforced  by the  officer in-charge Kilome Police Station.

VI. Costs be provided for

2) The application is grounded   on the  grounds on its face and is supported by the  supporting and supplementary affidavits Gregory D. Mutangili, the first  Plaintiff/Applicant herein.  The two   were sworn at Nunguni and Machakos on the  27th March, 2017 and 12th June, 2017 respectively.  The Application is opposed by the Respondents vide the replying and further affidavits of Christopher  K. Mwina, the second Respondent, both sworn at Nairobi on the  29th May, 2017 and 23rd February, 2018 respectively.

3) On the 2nd  May,  2017 the court directed  that the  application be  disposed off by way of written submissions.   On the 1st March, 2018  the respondents indicated that they would not file any submissions and as such the submissions on record are those from the Applicant.

4) The Application’s submissions are that the Respondents have never  filed a defence to the Applicant’s action and it is presumed that they are not opposed  to the  suit.

5) The Applicant  further submitted that parcel of land  known as number  17 Kilome Market belongs to Daniel Mutangili (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and  that the Applicant  is his  legal representative  as can be seen from the letters of  administration annexed  to his supporting  affidavit.

6) Regarding   Judicial  Review No. 6 of  2017 where the second Respondent   alleges  that the County Government   of Makueni  has acknowledged that the suit property belongs   to one Peter N.  Ndula and  Peter J.K Walya  as per the annexed order to the second Respondent’s replying affidavit, the  Applicant  pointed out the second Respondent is not a party  to the suit in question and neither  has he demonstrated   his  interest in the plot and  nothing  was exhibited to show/prove  that the County Government  of  Makueni has   acknowledged  that the deceased is not  the owner of the   plot  in question.  The Applicant   further   submitted that  the Applicant   is not named as a party in the Judicial Review  proceedings as an interested party.

7) Finally  the Applicant  submitted that he has met  the conditions for  the grant of  order of injunction set out in the case of Giella  Vs Cassman  Brown Case.  The Applicant added that should the suit property be  transferred   to a third  party (emphasis  are mine) the same  cannot  be compensated  by way of damages.

8)In an application for  interlocutory injunction, the Applicant must satisfy the three principles set   out in the famous case of Giella Vs Cassman Brown and Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358.

9) The  principles are:-

1) An  Applicant  must  show  a prima facie case with a probability of success,

2) An  injunction will not normally be granted  unless the Applicant might  suffer  irreparable injury,

3) When   the court is in doubt, it  will  decide the application  on the balance of convenience.

10)   From  the affidavit evidence   before   me, I do  note that although  the Applicant  did annex a copy of grant of letters of administration intestate  dated 15th March, 2004  to his  supporting  affidavit as GDM 1, he did not   disclose whether or not he was  latter issued with a confirmed  grant to show how plot number 17 Kilome Market  was to  be devolved  but this  is besides the point since annexure  GDM1 confers upon him the authority to administer  the estate of the  deceased. On the   other hand, the Respondent  rely on the order  issued on the 9th May, 2017 in the Misc. Application JR no. 6 of 2017 where  the parties were Peter N.  Ndolo and Peter J.K Walya (as Exparte Applicants) with  the County  Government  of Makueni  being  the Respondent. The Applicant in this  matter before me was not a party in the miscellaneous application  JR No. 6 of 2017.  The Applicant appears to have been condemned unheard.  Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the most appropriate step to take at this juncture is to issue an order of status quo.  I, therefore, order that there be status as at the time of filing   this suit pending   the hearing and determination of the suit herein.

Signed, dated and delivered at Makueni this 11th day of June, 2018.

MBOGO C.G

JUDGE

IN THE PRESENCE OF;

Mr. Munyasia  for  the Defendant/Respondents.

The Plaintiff/Applicant

Mr.  Kwemboi    Court Assistant

MBOGO C.G, JUDGE

11TH JUNE, 2018