Joseph Baker Kiamba Mwaniki v Abdi Godana Dida & 3 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Case Brief: Joseph Baker Kiamba Mwaniki v Abdi Godana Dida & 3 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Joseph Baker Kiamba Mwaniki v. Abdi Godana Dida & 3 Others
- Case Number: ELC Case No. 91 of 2020
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: October 16, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): B.M. Eboso
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues the court must resolve include:
- Has the ownership of the suit properties been established, and do the defendants have a claim on the suit properties?
- Has the applicant established a case to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought?

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Joseph Baker Kiamba Mwaniki, is the registered proprietor of two parcels of land (Land Parcel No. LR No. 209/9002/2 and LR No. 209/9002/3) since 1977. He claims to have enjoyed quiet possession of these properties until May 2020, when the defendants, associated with the Kibagare Slums Association, allegedly trespassed and began constructing illegal structures on the land. The defendants contend that they have been using the properties for farming for over seventy years and argue that the plaintiff's allocation of the land was irregular, asserting a claim of adverse possession.

4. Procedural History:
The plaintiff initiated the suit on June 3, 2020, seeking various reliefs, including a permanent injunction against the defendants and eviction orders. Alongside the plaint, he filed a notice of motion seeking urgent interlocutory reliefs, including an interim injunction and a mandatory injunction for the removal of the defendants' structures. The defendants opposed the application, claiming their long-standing use of the land and challenging the plaintiff's ownership. The application was heard through written submissions from both parties.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the criteria for granting an injunction as established in *Giella v. Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358*, which requires the applicant to demonstrate a prima facie case, the likelihood of irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favoring the applicant.
- Case Law: The court referenced *Teresia Njeri Mwangi v. Paul Ndungi [2014] eKLR* regarding the criteria for granting a mandatory injunction and *Locabi International Finance Limited v. Agro-Export and Another (1986) All ER 901* concerning the standards for granting such relief at the interlocutory stage.
- Application: The court found that the plaintiff had established ownership and that the defendants had invaded the properties, leading to a prima facie case. The court noted that the plaintiff's rights were protected under Article 40 of the Constitution and Section 25 of the Land Registration Act. The court determined that the plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable harm if the defendants were allowed to continue their actions, thus favoring the issuance of a prohibitory injunction.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, issuing an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing or erecting structures on the plaintiff's properties pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The decision underscores the protection of property rights and the importance of adhering to lawful processes in land ownership disputes.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The court granted the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction, protecting his rights as the registered owner of the disputed properties against the defendants' claims. This case highlights the legal principles surrounding property rights, the significance of proper land use, and the judicial process in resolving land disputes in Kenya. The ruling sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly regarding the balance between established rights and claims of adverse possession.