Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 26th October 2016 (in the pending suit over parcel No. MN/VI/2360)· [2017] KEELC 18 (KLR)

Samuel G. Njoroge (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Late Geofrey Giukaru Njoroge)(deceased) v Wanje Holdings Limited [2017] KEELC 18 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 June 2017
1,981 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Mombasa dismissed a landowner's bid to block development of a Mombasa plot because he hid earlier court cases from the judge.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, the legal representative of the estate of the late Geoffrey Gikaru Njoroge, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 26th October 2016 under the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from developing, demolishing, transferring, sub-dividing, alienating, charging or otherwise dealing with parcel No. MN/VI/2360. The plaintiff contended that the defendant, claiming to have purchased the property at a public auction from National Bank of Kenya, was demolishing structures on the property; that the purchase occurred during the pendency of HCCC No. 265 of 1996 (consolidated) between Kenatco Transport Co. Ltd (under receivership) and the deceased; that the auction was not properly advertised; and that the plaintiff faced eviction without a hearing. The defendant opposed, deponing that it purchased the property for Kshs. 35,000,000 on 11th August 2014, carried out due diligence, found no caveat, prohibition or court order against the title, and had obtained vacant possession in ELC No. 168 of 2015. The defendant argued the claim was res judicata and that damages would suffice. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, the court found no prima facie case with probability of success: the defendant was the registered proprietor who had lawfully acquired the property. Any loss was quantifiable in damages, and the balance of convenience favoured the registered owner. The court further found the plaintiff guilty of material non-disclosure, having failed to disclose prior proceedings in ELC No. 168 of 2015 in which similar applications were dismissed. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie case under the Giella test

Holding

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success; the defendant lawfully acquired the suit property from National Bank of Kenya under a floating debenture and is the registered proprietor

Reasoning

The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown criteria. The defendant demonstrated lawful acquisition of the suit property from the chargee bank and registration as proprietor. Prior litigation in ELC No. 168 of 2015, in which the plaintiff sought similar orders and was dismissed, undermined the plaintiff's claim. The court was therefore not satisfied a prima facie case existed.

p. 2
02

Duty of full and candid disclosure in equitable applications

Holding

The plaintiff was guilty of material non-disclosure by deponing that there had never been proceedings between the parties over the suit property, when the issues had been determined in ELC No. 168 of 2015

Reasoning

Because an injunction is an equitable remedy, the applicant must make full disclosure of all material facts. The ruling in ELC No. 168 of 2015 showed the applicant had sought to be enjoined, a mandatory injunction, stay of execution and setting aside of judgment, and had been dismissed. This contradicted the supporting affidavit, disentitling the plaintiff to equitable relief.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must come to court with clean hands and make full disclosure of all material facts
  • Where the value of suit property can be ascertained, loss is compensable by damages and irreparable harm is not established

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 26th October 2016 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63(e)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1(a), 3(3), 3(4); Order 50 Rules (1), (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • David James Mbogo v Alfred Asikoyo & 3 Others
    (2013) eKLR
  • William Koross v Hezekiah Kiptoo Komen & 4 Others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Olympic Company Trading Ltd & another v Saidi Mohamed & 4 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Kenya Hotel Properties Limited v Willisden Investments Limited & 6 others
    (2013) eKLR
  • Giella v Cassman Brown
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1(a), 3(3) and (4) and Order 50 Rules (1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel G. Njoroge (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Late Geofrey Giukaru Njoroge)(deceased) v Wanje Holdings Limited [2017] KEELC 18 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Notice of Motion dated 26th October 2016 (in the pending suit over parcel No. MN/VI/2360). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/18/eng@2017-06-15

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