Moses Kiptanui & another v Evans Kamau Mwaura [2015] KEELC 476 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Kitale dismissed buyers' injunction bid because they misled the court and used it to evict a beneficiary who never consented to selling his land share.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants were entitled to a temporary injunction
The application was dismissed because it was mischievously brought to evict a party in continuous possession; the relief sought was in substance mandatory and the applicants lacked clean hands
The court found as an uncontested fact that the respondent had never left the property, contradicting the applicants' claim that he moved out when the land was sold. The vendors' lawyer's letter of 13/2/2015 confirmed the respondent was in possession, making the applicants' application misleading. Granting the injunction would in effect remove the respondent, which is the function of a mandatory injunction. The administrators also appeared to have sold the respondent's own entitlement without his consent.
Whether the respondent consented to the sale of the suit properties
There was a serious question: the respondent's entitlement in the estate appears to have been sold without his consent
The court noted the respondent filed objection proceedings in Succession Cause No. 260 of 2006 which were dismissed and are subject of a pending appeal. He is entitled to either 3 or 2 acres depending on which of the two Evans Kamau Mwauras he is. The applicants bought the entire 27.6-acre parcel, including the respondent's entitlement, and no documents showed he had land elsewhere. Administrators could not sell his entitlement without his consent.
Legal principles established
#- An injunction is an equitable remedy and whoever seeks it must approach the court with clean hands
- A temporary injunction cannot be used to achieve eviction or removal of a party in possession; that relief requires a mandatory injunction decided on the facts
- Administrators of an estate cannot sell a beneficiary's entitlement without the beneficiary's consent
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants' application is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- 2.Certified copies of proceedings and ruling to be supplied to the applicants upon payment of the requisite fees
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to grant interim equitable relief (temporary injunction) in a pending land suit; specific provision not stated in the judgment
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.
- Geoffrey Wanyonyi v Edward Lagat [2017] KEELC 936 (KLR)[2017] KEELC 936 (KLR)19 Oct 2017applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Moses Kiptanui & another v Evans Kamau Mwaura [2015] KEELC 476 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in judgment (Notice of motion dated 25/3/2015 in the suit herein). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2015/476/eng@2015-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.