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 8th October 2015· [2017] KEELC 2379 (KLR)

Daniel Kamau Nduati v Alice Mumbi Kariuki [2017] KEELC 2379 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 May 2017
1,024 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court refused to stop a Dandora plot owner from building because the applicant's own ownership documents were irregular and the respondent was already in possession.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, David Kamau Nduati, moved the court by notice of motion dated 8th October 2015 seeking an interim injunction restraining the respondent, Alice Mumbi Kariuki, from entering, building or continuing construction on Plot No. 164 – Komarock Bridge Jua Kali Residential cum Commercial plots, Dandora Phase 1, with police supervision of any order, plus costs. He claimed allocation of the plot by the then Nairobi City Council and alleged that the respondent had invaded the land without colour of right. The respondent opposed the application, contending that she bought the plot in 2001 from the original allottee, Adrine Wambui Gachui alias Maina, received a plot allocation card from the association, and was recommended for registration by a vetting committee; she asserted she had been in possession and that the applicant's name did not appear on the list of plot owners. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown test and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the court found that the applicant's own letter of allocation named Rachel Wambui Kamau as allottee, that the claimed transfer was unexplained and irregular, and that the respondent was in possession with better documentation. The applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with probability of success, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent in possession. The court dismissed the application with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with probability of success

Holding

He did not; the letter of allocation he relied on named Rachel Wambui Kamau as allottee, his claim of transfer was unexplained and his documents appeared irregular, while the respondent produced purchase documents and a vetting committee recommendation in her favour

Reasoning

The court examined the applicant's own documents. The letter of allocation showed the plot allotted to Rachel Kamau Wambui, not the applicant. The claimed transfer date was unclear and bills were generated in both names in the same year, suggesting irregular documentation. By contrast, the respondent bought the plot from the original allottee, received an allocation card, was recommended for registration by the vetting committee, and appeared on the list of plot owners. The applicant's name did not appear on that list.

p. 2
02

Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction

Holding

It favoured the respondent, who was in possession of the suit land

Reasoning

The court found that the respondent, not the applicant, was in possession, having bought the suit land and put up buildings from 2003. Where ownership was in doubt, possession favoured the respondent. Damages would compensate the applicant if he ultimately proved ownership, so no irreparable loss was shown.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must show a prima facie case with probability of success, per Giella v Cassman Brown
  • Balance of convenience tilts in favour of the party in possession where ownership is in doubt

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated 8th October 2015 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent

Authorities

#

Cases cited (2)

  • Giella –Vs- Cassman Brown & Co Ltd
    [1973] EA 358
  • Mrao Limited –Vs- Frist American bank of Kenya Limited & others
    [2NG] KLR 125
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction over the suit land (interlocutory injunction application in the pending suit)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Daniel Kamau Nduati v Alice Mumbi Kariuki [2017] KEELC 2379 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Notice of motion dated 8th October 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2379/eng@2017-05-30

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