Geoffrey K Kamau & 2 others (Suing as the Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer & Members of Kwa Maji Self-Help Group) v Barfan Sumbule & 2 others [2016] KEELC 1299 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court refused to stop land sales in a self-help group dispute because buyers were already occupying and building on the plots.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with probability of success
They did not; the 2nd Defendant had herself purchased plots from Miharati Development Co. Ltd and sold them on, including to the 3rd Defendant who had constructed thereon before the suit
The applicants claimed sole ownership through the Self Help Group, but the record showed the 2nd Defendant purchased plots 10-14 from Miharati Development Co. Ltd and later sold plot 13 to the 3rd Defendant, who built before suit was filed. Whether the Defendants lost their rights could only be determined at trial. The court declined to make final findings at interlocutory stage and found no prima facie case.
Whether damages would be an adequate remedy
Yes; the sub plots could be quantified and the Defendants ordered to pay any amounts owed, so the Plaintiffs could be adequately compensated
The plots sold were identifiable and quantifiable, so any debt to the group could be recovered by way of damages or payment. Applying established authority, no injunction lies where damages are an adequate remedy.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It tilts in favour of the Defendants, who are in actual occupation; the 3rd Defendant had taken possession and constructed on plot 13
The 2nd Defendant's plots had been sold to persons with expectations of possession, and the 3rd Defendant was already in occupation and had constructed. Following the reasoning in James Jamwa Ndeda, the balance favours the party in actual occupation over the Plaintiffs.
Legal principles established
#- Conditions for granting a temporary injunction: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and balance of convenience
- An injunction will not issue where the event sought to be restrained has already occurred; injunctions preserve the status quo
- In an injunction application the court should not make final findings on substantive disputed issues
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 1st July 2015 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Defendants/Respondents
- 3.The interim orders in force are discharged and/or vacated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court; Order 40 Rules 1, 2 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 63(e), 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Geoffrey K Kamau & 2 others (Suing as the Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer & Members of Kwa Maji Self-Help Group) v Barfan Sumbule & 2 others [2016] KEELC 1299 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 1st July 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/1299/eng@2016-11-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.