Win Njoki Kori v James Kianja Karanja & another [2017] KEELC 813 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court granted a review of its own ruling but still dismissed the land injunction because the application never clearly identified the plot it sought to protect.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Review under Order 45 rule 1 on the ground of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
Review granted because the amended plaint and further affidavit, though filed on 29th March 2017, were not in the court file when the ruling of 22nd June 2017 was written and delivered, so the court decided the application without them.
The court found that paying for and stamping pleadings is one step in filing; actually placing them in the court file is the final step. Since the amended plaint and further affidavit were not in the file at the time of the ruling, the court did not consider them, constituting a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record justifying review. The court however cautioned against the practice of carrying documents to be placed in the file on the hearing day.
Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction
No prima facie case was established because, even after amendment, the identity of the plot to be protected by the injunction was unclear, the application not having been amended to reflect the new plot number.
While the plaintiff proved registration of Gilgil/Gilgil Block 1/34615 by title deed and levelled accusations of trespass and destruction against the first defendant, the Notice of Motion dated 22nd November 2016 was never amended and still sought to protect the 'parcel of land adjacent to Gilgil/Gilgil 1/3950'. After amendment, what the adjacent parcel meant remained unclear, so the court could not identify the property the injunction would protect and declined to proceed to the other Giella/Nguruman limbs.
Legal principles established
#- Pleadings and documents do not form part of the court record unless actually placed in the court file; a party bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring its case is properly pleaded and on the record.
- An interlocutory injunction requires the applicant to sequentially establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience; failure at the first stage disposes of the application.
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling and order of court dated 22nd June 2017 reviewed
- 2.Notice of Motion dated 22nd November 2016 dismissed with costs to the first defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (application for review of decree or order)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Win Njoki Kori v James Kianja Karanja & another [2017] KEELC 813 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Notice of Motion dated 4th July 2017 (arising from Notice of Motion dated 22nd November 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/813/eng@2017-11-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.