Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedApplication dated 31/1/2017 (Nairobi Block 83/1903)· [2017] KEELC 284 (KLR)

Joel Munyoki Munene v Agnes Kagure Kariuki & 2 others [2017] KEELC 284 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 December 2017
KBK. BOR
536 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court blocked a land buyer from occupying a plot because her lease was signed by a city council that no longer legally existed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on the Plaintiff's application dated 31/1/2017 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the 1st Defendant from entering, occupying, trespassing on, selling or interfering with Nairobi Block 83/1903 pending the hearing of the suit. The Plaintiff claimed ownership through a purchase from Erastus Nyaga Timothy, tracing to the original owner Silas Mugo Kithenji, supported by an assignment dated 31/5/2007 from the 2nd Defendant, payment of rent and rates, and occupation since 2007; his application for a certificate of lease was rejected on grounds of double allocation. The 1st Defendant claimed she bought the plot from Joseph Chege Muturi in September 2016 and held a certificate of lease, while the 2nd Defendant's Director of Legal Affairs swore that its records showed the Plaintiff as registered owner. The court observed that the lease annexed by the 1st Defendant was executed in November 2016 by the mayor and town clerk of the City Council of Nairobi, which had ceased to exist by operation of law after county governments came into being under the 2010 Constitution, and was signed by Lydia Mbogo Kwamboka rather than the 1st Defendant. Finding a prima facie case, the court granted prayers (c) and (d), declined prayers (e) and (f) as premature, and awarded the Plaintiff the costs of the application. Whether the 1st Defendant validly acquired the property is reserved for full trial.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case for a temporary injunction

Holding

Yes; the Plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case against the 1st Defendant and was granted injunction orders (c) and (d)

Reasoning

The Plaintiff claims ownership through a chain from the original allottee, holds an assignment dated 31/5/2007, and has been paying rent and rates and enjoying occupation since 2007. The 1st Defendant's claim of purchase in 2016 is clouded by a lease executed in November 2016 by the mayor and town clerk of a council that had ceased to exist, and signed by a person other than the 1st Defendant. The mode of the 1st Defendant's acquisition is to be determined at trial.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A lease executed after the City Council of Nairobi ceased to exist upon the coming into force of the 2010 Constitution and county governments raises questions about the validity of the grant that must be resolved at trial

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction restraining the 1st Defendant or her agents from entering, occupying, trespassing on, selling or in any other way interfering with Nairobi Block 83/1903 pending hearing and determination of the suit (prayers (c) and (d) of the application dated 31/1/2017)
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Promulgation and establishment of county governments
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joel Munyoki Munene v Agnes Kagure Kariuki & 2 others [2017] KEELC 284 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Application dated 31/1/2017 (Nairobi Block 83/1903). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/284/eng@2017-12-05

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