By K, KNA
The Eldoret High Court has issued restraining orders to a firm embroiled in land tussle from undertaking any commercial developments on a prime land in Uasin Gishu County. until a pending succession dispute was settled.
Eldoret High Court Judge Reuben Nyakundi restrained Tarita Farm Limited and Daniel Kiptoo Bargoria, a son of a former Kenya Volleyball Association administrator from developing A 12.26 ha piece of land until a succession cause is determined.
“The court hereby grants restraining orders against Tarita Farm Limited and Daniel Kiptoo Bargoria, whether by themselves, their servants, agents, employees, or assignees, from intermeddling with the estate of the late Barnabas Tuitoek Bargoria, and in particular from further developing, disposing of, charging, transferring, subdividing, or in any manner dealing with land parcel Kiplombe/Kuinet Block 2 [Rotich and Birech 21 in Uasin Gishu County, pending the determination of this succession cause,” the orders read in part.
The injunction in favour of Loice Jerop Bargoria, who had moved to court to stop her brother and Tarita Farm Limited, who are respondents in the case, from constructing a petrol station and any other commercial developments on the deceased’s land
The complainant moved to the High Court to seek protection against intermingling and development on a land, where no proper administration and distribution of the deceased’s property had taken place amongst other family members.
“This ruling ensures that decisions about the use of family land are made through proper legal processes rather than unilateral action by one party,’’ the Judge ruled.
He added that the establishment of commercial infrastructure on the property, not legally shared out, created practical difficulties in reversing such developments should the court ultimately find that they were unauthorized.
The costs and practical challenges of dismantling commercial structures, combined with potential environmental remediation requirements, demonstrate that monetary compensation alone would be inadequate to remedy the harm.
Other administrators of the estate of the late Bargoria include Selina Jemutai Bargoria, Victor Kipkemboi Bargoria, Maurine Jelagat Bargoria, and Rebecca Jepkemoi Bargoria.
The court observed that the applicant stood to suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction was not granted, as the continued development of the property may result in permanent alterations that cannot be easily undone through monetary compensation.
The court further observed that granting the injunction would preserve the status-quo and ensure that the interests of all beneficiaries are protected and that decisions about the use of family land are made through proper legal processes rather than unilateral action by one party.
The parcel of land KIPLOMBE/KUINET BLOCK 2 (ROTICH AND BIRECH) 21, the court noted, remains registered in the deceased’s name, and the estate is yet to be distributed among the beneficiaries.
The applicant produced a certificate of official search evidencing that the property in question belongs to the deceased and forms part of the deceased’s estate.
In her suit, Jerop alleges that the respondents, without any colour of right, have encroached on the parcel of land and are in the process of establishing a petrol pump station, greenhouses for commercial horticultural farming, and a water bank.
The respondents did not deny these developments, but rather challenged the applicant’s right to bring the application and argued that they have lawful authority to develop the property.
The 2nd respondent’s admission that he has had the property, coupled with the evidence of ongoing developments on the land, raises serious questions about whether these activities constitute intermeddling with the deceased’s estate.
The fact that the estate has not been distributed and no grant of representation has been issued to authorize such extensive commercial developments suggests that the respondents’ actions may indeed amount to unauthorized intermeddling, remarked Justice Nyakundi.