Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 22nd July 2013 (suit over Nairobi/Block 72/2256)· [2014] KEELC 503 (KLR)

Church Commissioners For Kenya v Kenya National Highways Authority & another [2014] KEELC 503 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
28 January 2014
1,310 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court temporarily blocked the government from evicting an ACK church from its land, but only for six months pending resolution of survey conflicts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, the ACK Church of the Good Shepherd Langata, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2013 seeking to restrain the Defendants from evicting it from Nairobi/Block 72/2256, demolishing its church buildings and structures, or trespassing on the property pending the hearing of the suit. The Plaintiff claimed valid title issued on 12th July 2013, thirty years' occupation, and approved developments, relying on two allotment letters and survey exhibits. The 1st Defendant, through the Manager of Survey, opposed the application, asserting that the property lies on a road reserve and buffer zone for the Trans Africa Highway, that any allocation after planning was unlawful, and that the title was irregularly obtained twenty years after the first allotment letter. Public notices for removal of illegal structures were relied on. The 2nd Defendant did not respond. Applying the Giella vs Cassman Brown principles, the court found the Plaintiff had shown a prima facie case and irreparable loss, but noted apparent conflicts between the parties' survey plans and the public interest in the highway's construction. The court allowed the application conditionally: an injunction for six months against eviction, demolition or trespass; the Plaintiff to set the suit down for hearing on a priority basis within that period or the injunction lapses; parties at liberty to apply; and costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff met the Giella vs Cassman Brown requirements for a temporary injunction

Holding

Yes - prima facie case and irreparable loss established, so a conditional injunction issued

Reasoning

The Plaintiff produced evidence of title, allotment letters and photographs of developments on the suit property. The Defendant's claim of irregular allocation and the location of the property on a road reserve raised factual and survey conflicts that could only be resolved at full hearing. The court found the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if the structures were demolished, but balanced this against the public interest in the highway's timely construction by making the injunction time-limited.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit property lies on a road reserve or buffer zone

Holding

Unresolved at interlocutory stage; survey authorities to confirm and produce approved survey plans

Reasoning

Both parties relied on development and survey plans supporting their competing positions on the location of the suit property. The court noted apparent conflicts between the plans, and directed that the relevant survey authorities confirm the position and produce approved survey plans before final orders are made.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a party holds evidence of title and has undertaken developments on the land, a prima facie case and irreparable loss may be established, but the injunction may be granted conditionally with a time limit to protect the public interest
  • Whether a title was irregularly acquired is a matter for full trial, not an interlocutory application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendant, its servants and/or agents restrained from evicting the Plaintiff from Nairobi/Block 72/2256, demolishing its church buildings and other structures, or trespassing thereon for a period of six months
  2. 2.The Plaintiff to set the suit down for hearing on a priority basis within the six months, failing which the injunction orders shall lapse
  3. 3.Parties at liberty to apply
  4. 4.Costs of the Notice of Motion to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 40
  • Government Lands Act (repealed)provisions on alienation and allocation

Cases cited (2)

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Cycad Properties Limited & Another vs The Attorney General and 4 Others
    (2013) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction to determine an application for a temporary injunction under the Giella vs Cassman Brown principles; constitutional protection of property under Article 40 invoked by the Plaintiff

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Church Commissioners For Kenya v Kenya National Highways Authority & another [2014] KEELC 503 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2013 (suit over Nairobi/Block 72/2256). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/503/eng@2014-01-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.