Charles Ndiritu Wanjohi & 4 others v Lawrence Maina Mwangi & another [2012] KECA 95 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to freeze Nakuru land already sold and transferred, confirming courts will not issue injunctions that cannot achieve anything.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an injunction pending appeal can issue where the suit property has already been transferred to the 2nd respondent
The application fails because the transfer had already been effected, rendering any injunction futile; equity will not grant a remedy that would be in vain
A certificate of official search confirmed that title to Nakuru Municipality Block 8/44 passed to the 2nd respondent on 4th October 2011, before the matter even reached the High Court. Following the principle in Erick Makokha v Lawrence Sayani, an application under Rule 5(2)(b) invokes equitable jurisdiction, and equity will not make orders that cannot be enforced. An injunction over property already transferred would serve no practical purpose.
Whether an injunction can issue against the 2nd respondent, a stranger to the sale agreements
No. The 2nd respondent was not party to the agreements the 1st respondent allegedly breached, so no order could be made against the 2nd respondent
The applicants' grievance arose from breach by the 1st respondent of agreements for sale. The 2nd respondent purchased the property and took possession without having been a party to those agreements. The trial judge had noted that the applicants never took possession and that clause 8 of the agreement provided for payment of 10% of the purchase price as damages on breach. The court therefore declined to extend the injunction to a non-contracting party.
Legal principles established
#- An injunction will not be granted where, owing to events that have already occurred, it would be ineffective or incapable of compliance - equity will not act in vain
- An order of injunction cannot be made against a person who was not a party to the contract alleged to have been breached
Court orders
#- 1.The application under Rule 5(2)(b) seeking an injunction pending the hearing of the intended appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- HCCC No. 250 of 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Avistia SRO Limited v Njenga & 8 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E621 of 2023) [2024] KECA 1210 (KLR)[2024] KECA 1210 (KLR)20 Sept 2024applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Ndiritu Wanjohi & 4 others v Lawrence Maina Mwangi & another [2012] KECA 95 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2012). Civil Application No. NAI 125 of 2012 (UR 94/2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2012/95/eng@2012-08-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.