Luka Cheptum Bomett v Henry Kipyegon Nduati [2013] KEHC 2966 (KLR)

REPUBLIC  OF  KENYA

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT   OF  KENYA  AT   NAKURU

E.L.C NO 215  of  2013

LUKA  CHEPTUM  BOMETT…………………PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

HENRY   KIPYEGON  NDUATI……………..DEFENDANT

RULING

By  Notice  of   Motion  dated  26th  February  2013 the  plaintiff ,  Luka  Cheptum  Bomett, brought this  application against  the defendant Henry Kipyegon  Nduati  seeking, among  other  orders, a  temporary  injunction  to  restrain the  Defendant/Respondent by  himself, his servants and/or  agents  from trespassing alienating, disposing  off, wasting,  dealing with  or  in  any  way  interfering with  Land  parcel  No.04528 within  Nessuit settlement  scheme  pending the  hearing and  determination of this  application interparties.

The  application was unopposed. The  respondent was duly  served with  the  application and  hearing   notice  but   neither  filed  a response  nor  appeared  for the  hearing  of the  application .

The  applicant  relied on  the  grounds  deponed   in  his  supporting   affidavit sworn on  26th  February, 2013 that  he is  a  bonafide  purchaser  with  full rights of plot  No.04528  Nessuit settlement scheme  measuring  approximately 5  acres,  having  bought the  suit  land  pursuant  to a sale  agreement signed  between  himself and the  respondent on  10th September,  2008: That upon  completion of  full  payment of the suit property the defendant  handed  over to  him the  allotment letter,    after  which he took possession,  planted crops,  trees and  put up  developments on the suit  land: That  the  Defendant has  now  trespassed onto   the suit land,  chased  him away with a panga/machete  resulting  in the  defendant’s  arrest and  being  charged  in  court.

The  case  of  Giella  Vs  Cassman Brown ( 1973)  E.A   358, lays  down  the  principles  for  granting an  interlocutory  injunction  relief. The   court will consider whether:

The  applicant  has shown  that  he  has  a  prima  facie   case  with  a  probability   of  success.

Damages  will  be  an  adequate  remedy  and

On the  balance  of  convenience, should the  court  be in  doubt it  will determine  the  matter  on a balance  of  convenience.

The  applicant  has  exhibited  a  copy  of  a  sale  agreement  between  himself and the  defendant, a copy  of   the  allotment  letter in the  defendant’s  name and  proof   of   payment of  the full   purchase  price to  the  defendant. As   this is  uncontroverted,  I am  satisfied  that the  Applicant  has  demonstrated  that  he  has  a  prima  facie case with  a  probability  of  success.   The applicant in prayer 3 has sought a permanent injunction. This I cannot  give  at an  interlocutory stage as such an order will  finalize the  suit.  Instead, I  hereby order that pending  the  hearing  and  determination  of this  suit, there  be  a  temporary injunction restraining  the Defendant/Respondent  by himself, his  servants and /or  agents  from trespassing, wasting, dealing  or  in  any  way interfering   with the  plaintiffs/Applicant’s  Land  known  as  plot  No.04528 within  Nessuit  Settlement  Scheme.

No order is granted as to costs since the Defendant did not enter   appearance.

Dated, signed and delivered at  Nakuru this 5th day  of  July 2013.

L N  WAITHAKA

JUDGE