Richard Kipruto Busienei v George Njoroge Muiruri t/a Leakeys Auctioneers [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
H. A. Omondi
Judgment Date
May 21, 2021
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Richard Kipruto Busienei v George Njoroge Muiruri t/a Leakeys Auctioneers [2020] eKLR, examining key legal principles and outcomes. Ideal for legal professionals and students.

Case Brief: Richard Kipruto Busienei v George Njoroge Muiruri t/a Leakeys Auctioneers [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Richard Kipruto Busienei v. George Njoroge Muiruri T/A Leakeys Auctioneers
- Case Number: Civil Suit No 50 of 2019
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: May 21, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): H. A. Omondi
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented to the court include:
1. Whether the Chief Land Registrar should register an inhibition order that was received at the Central Lands Registry.
2. Whether the title deed issued to Limo Limited should be recalled and canceled due to the alleged violation of a court order.
3. Whether a temporary injunction should be granted against Limo Limited from dealing with the disputed property pending the determination of the main suit.

3. Facts of the Case:
The applicant, Richard Kipruto Busienei, sought relief against the respondent, George Njoroge Muiruri, who operated as Leakeys Auctioneers. The dispute arose over parcel of land number L.R. NO. 6459/4 OFF PLATEAU-AINABKOI ROAD. The applicant had previously obtained a court order on December 19, 2019, which temporarily stayed a public auction of his property for 14 days. Despite this order, the respondent proceeded with the auction, leading to the applicant filing a contempt application. The applicant also obtained an inhibition order on January 15, 2020, against the Chief Land Registrar, which was received at the registry on January 17, 2020. However, Limo Limited was issued a title deed for the property on March 12, 2020, raising concerns of procedural impropriety and potential collusion to deny the applicant his property rights.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with an application dated March 31, 2020, where the applicant sought various orders, including the registration of the inhibition order and the cancellation of the title deed issued to Limo Limited. The respondent, in their replying affidavit, did not object to the prayers but argued that the application was an abuse of court process since Limo Limited had never been a party to the suit. The court was faced with the challenge of determining whether to grant the injunction and whether the applicant had a prima facie case with a probability of success.

5. Analysis:
Rules:
The court considered relevant provisions under the Civil Procedure Rules and the Land Act, particularly Section 68(1) regarding the registration of inhibitions, and the principles established in the case of Giella v. Cassman Brown regarding the granting of injunctions.

Case Law:
The court cited two key cases: Giella v. Cassman Brown, which outlines the conditions under which an injunction may be granted, and Mrao v. First American Bank of Kenya, which discusses the necessity of establishing a prima facie case. These cases were instrumental in assessing whether the applicant had a legitimate claim to the property and the appropriateness of the requested orders.

Application:
The court determined that the applicant's application stood on shaky grounds. The applicant failed to specify what actions Limo Limited should be restrained from, leading the court to conclude that it could not issue effective orders. Furthermore, the court noted that the inhibition had not been registered as required by law, thus allowing the Chief Land Registrar to proceed with registering the property in favor of Limo Limited. The applicant's failure to disclose the role of Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited also weakened his case.

6. Conclusion:
The court ultimately dismissed the application, ruling that it lacked sufficient merit and clarity. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal procedures in property transactions and the necessity for applicants to present clear and compelling arguments for relief.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya dismissed Richard Kipruto Busienei's application against George Njoroge Muiruri and Limo Limited, finding that the applicant had not established a prima facie case nor adequately specified the actions to be restrained. The ruling highlights the critical nature of procedural compliance and the need for clarity in legal requests regarding property disputes. The case serves as a cautionary tale for individuals involved in property transactions to ensure that all legal protocols are strictly followed to protect their rights.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Richard-Kipruto-Busienei-v-George-Njoroge-Muiruri-t-a-Leakeys-Auctioneers-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1457_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries