Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of motion dated 1st April 2015 (ELC suit, Kitale)· [2015] KEELC 469 (KLR)

Ramadahan Makal Lalangole v Lopusikou Kori Lokamar [2015] KEELC 469 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 May 2015
EOE. Obaga
922 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant moved the court by notice of motion dated 1st April 2015 seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the respondent's removal from plot No.274 in Kanyarkwat Settlement Scheme pending the hearing of the main suit, in which he sought a declaration of ownership, eviction of the respondent as a trespasser, a mandatory injunction, general and exemplary damages for trespass, costs and interest. The applicant, administrator of the estate of his late brother Loitalima Lalangole to whom the plot had been allotted, produced the grant and confirmed grant and an allotment letter from the District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Trans-Nzoia. The respondent, having sued the applicant in ELC Case No.67 of 2014 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.2.2015, then entered the land, chased away the applicant's son and occupied the house the applicant had built. Though duly served, the respondent neither entered appearance nor filed a reply. The court framed a single issue: whether a mandatory injunction may be granted at interlocutory stage. Applying the Locabail principles, endorsed in Kamau Mucuha v The Ripples Ltd, Shariff Abdi Hssan v Nadhif Adan and Super Power Cash and Carry Ltd, the court held that special circumstances existed, that the respondent had stolen a match after dismissal of his own suit, and that a trespasser should not retain an advantage gained unlawfully. The motion was allowed in its entirety.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a mandatory injunction can issue at interlocutory stage

Holding

Yes, in clear cases and where the defendant has taken unlawful advantage; the court felt a high degree of assurance and granted it.

Reasoning

The court applied the Locabail principles, endorsed in Kamau Mucuha v The Ripples Ltd and Super Power Cash and Carry Ltd, that mandatory injunctions at interlocutory stage require special circumstances and a higher standard of assurance than prohibitory injunctions. It found the respondent chased away the applicant's son and occupied his house only after the respondent's own suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, making him a prima facie trespasser who had stolen a match and could not rely on damages as an answer.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A mandatory injunction may be granted at interlocutory stage where there are special circumstances, in clear cases, and where the defendant has stolen a match on the plaintiff.
  • A trespasser should not be allowed to retain a position of advantage gained through unlawful means pending determination of the dispute.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Mandatory injunction granted ordering removal of the respondent from plot No.274 in Kanyarkwat Settlement Scheme; the applicant's notice of motion dated 1.4.2015 allowed in its entirety
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the interlocutory application in a land dispute

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ramadahan Makal Lalangole v Lopusikou Kori Lokamar [2015] KEELC 469 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Notice of motion dated 1st April 2015 (ELC suit, Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2015/469/eng@2015-05-18

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