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 AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2017] KEELC 2396 (KLR)

Jane Wanjeri Muriu v Lummen Enterprises & 2 others [2017] KEELC 2396 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 June 2017
EOE.O. Obaga
962 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

#

A Kenyan court blocked construction on two disputed plots but couldn't undo building already completed on a third, teaching that injunctions prevent harm, not reverse it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, administratrix of the estate of the late Evans Muriu Chege, brought a notice of motion dated 26 July 2016 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from further construction, building or depositing building materials on three plots - Plot Nos. 16/7340/98, 17/7340/98 and 23/7340/98 - allocated to the deceased by the first respondent through Share Certificates Nos. 50, 52 and 206, pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The first and second respondents conceded the allocations but stated that, unable to trace some shareholders including the deceased, and burdened by surveyors' bills, they sold the deceased's properties after media advertisements; one plot was sold to the third respondent, who had completed a storey building on it with tenants in occupation. The third respondent opposed the application, asserting he bought the plot without notice of any dispute. The court framed one issue: whether injunction orders could issue against all the respondents. Applying the principle that an injunction restrains future events or preserves property and cannot undo completed events, the court found no evidence that the second respondent sold all three properties, and that only one plot had been built upon. It granted the injunction only against the first and second respondents in respect of the two unbuilt plots, Plot Nos. 16/7340/98 and 17/7340/98, and awarded the costs of the application against them. The application therefore partially succeeded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a temporary injunction could issue against all three respondents over the three suit plots

Holding

The injunction was granted only against the first and second respondents and only in respect of the two plots not yet built upon; no injunction was granted over Plot No. 23/7340/98, which the third respondent had already fully developed

Reasoning

The court held that an injunction restrains future events or preserves property, and cannot reverse completed events. The only controverted evidence showed the third respondent purchased one plot and completed a building on it; there was no evidence the other two plots were sold. The two unbuilt plots required preservation pending trial, warranting an injunction limited to the first and second respondents.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An interlocutory injunction can only be granted to restrain an event which has not occurred or to preserve property until the suit is heard and determined; it cannot be granted where the event it seeks to prevent has already taken place
  • A court will preserve unencumbered property pending trial where the possession or disposal of it by one party is not substantiated by evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction restraining the first and second respondents, their agents, workers, servants or anybody claiming through them from carrying out further construction, building or depositing building materials on Plot Nos. 16/7340/98 and 17/7340/98 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the first and second respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunctions pending hearing and determination of the suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jane Wanjeri Muriu v Lummen Enterprises & 2 others [2017] KEELC 2396 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2396/eng@2017-06-21

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