Mohamed & another v Ramadhan & 8 others [2024] KEELC 13957 (KLR)

Mohamed & another v Ramadhan & 8 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E006 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 13957 (KLR) (11 December 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 13957 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi

Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E006 of 2023

FM Njoroge, J

December 11, 2024

Between

Hussein Juma Mohamed

1st Applicant

Said Juma Mohamed

2nd Applicant

and

Ramadhan Iddi Ramadhan & 8 others

Respondent

Ruling

1. In the application dated 19/9/24 the applicants in the originating summons seek injunctive orders restraining the respondents from in any manner whatsoever interfering with the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the originating summons. The application is premised on the sworn affidavit of the 1st applicant attached thereto.

2. The grounds upon which the application is made are that the grant registered in favour of the 1st -4th respondents was revoked for fraud and misrepresentation, but the 1st -4th respondents have invaded the suit land through an agent and are carrying on certain activities thereon including digging a water well and fencing off a portion of the land under occupation by the applicants, hence threatening their peaceful occupation thereof yet this is an adverse possession claim. The revocation of grant has not been appealed or stayed. It is stated that the ongoing trespass by the 1st -4th respondents may disrupt the status quo and it poses risk of irreparable harm to the rights of the applicants in the property which may be difficult to restore. It is also stated that the court issued a status quo order in several other related cases and so the respondents are hurriedly alienating the suit property and taking advantage of parties not covered by the orders issued in the other cases.

3. The 1st respondent filed a replying affidavit on behalf of the 1st – 4th respondents. she states that the applicants have failed to make disclosure that the 1st =-4th respondents are resident of the area mentioned in this case; that they have not dug any well on plot no 39 or erected any fence; that the applicants have failed to explain how they obtained possession of the land; that the applicants have failed to adequately describe the land they claim; that the 3rd respondent is now deceased; that there are no developments on the portion the applicants claim; that the alleged developments are being conducted by another settler on the land belonging to the respondents and not by the respondents themselves; that a stay has been granted and an appeal has been filed in respect of the order revoking the grant.

4. I have considered the application before me and noted that this matter is related to numerous other files in which, as the applicants have correctly pointed out, have orders of status quo. Though the respondents deny that they have committed the acts complained of by the applicants, this is a matter related to other matters involving many parties. There are status quo orders issued in the other files. I find it not seemly to have some of the files relating to the same subject matter contain status quo orders while others do not.

5. Consequently, I order that the status quo prevailing as at the date of this order with regard to the area claimed by the applicants shall be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the originating summons herein.

RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ON THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC, MALINDI