Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC No. 297 of 2014 (consolidated with ELC No. 1282 of 2014)· [2017] KEELC 2774 (KLR)

Rose Wangari Ndungu & another (suing on their own behalf and their own benefit and on behalf of and for the benefit of the estate of the late Mr. Stanley Ndungu Njoroge (Deceased) v Catherine Njeri [2017] KEELC 2774 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 May 2017
2,898 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court protected a registered landowner's title and penalised a buyer who hid a pending suit when seeking an injunction.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two consolidated Environment and Land Court suits concerning parcel LR No. Dagoretti/Riruta/6213 in Kawangware, Nairobi came before L. Gacheru J for determination of two competing applications for temporary injunctions, canvassed by written submissions. ELC No. 297 of 2014 was filed in March 2014 by Rose Wangari Ndungu and Rose Wanjiku Ndungu, administrators of the estate of Stanley Ndungu Njoroge, seeking a declaration of ownership and eviction of Catherine Njeri. Catherine Njeri, on behalf of the estate of Gabriel Kungu Kamunu, filed ELC No. 1282 of 2014 in October 2014 seeking a declaration that her late husband purchased the land from Njoroge, cancellation of the defendants' title, and a determination of her deceased husband's share. She also applied for a temporary injunction in a Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2014; the plaintiffs applied for a reciprocal injunction by Notice of Motion dated 22nd June 2015. The court held that the defendants, having obtained title by transmission through Succession Cause No. 654 of 2012, were prima facie absolute and indefeasible proprietors under Sections 24(a), 25(1) and 26(1) of the Land Registration Act. Catherine Njeri's application failed: her sale agreement concerned a different parcel, she was guilty of material non-disclosure and had not come to court with clean hands, and she sought an interlocutory injunction at variance with the permanent orders in her plaint. Her application was dismissed entirely with costs, and the status quo orders of 18th March 2015 were vacated. The plaintiffs' application succeeded: a temporary injunction was granted restraining Catherine Njeri from damaging, wasting, constructing further, alienating or disposing of the suit property pending trial, with costs in the cause. Contested questions of purchase and subdivision remain for the main trial.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie title and injunction against a registered owner

Holding

The Plaintiffs in ELC 297 of 2014, as registered proprietors, were prima facie absolute and indefeasible owners under Sections 24(a), 25(1) and 26(1) of the Land Registration Act and were entitled to preservation of the property by way of temporary injunction

Reasoning

The court noted that title was issued to the applicants after confirmation of grant in Succession Cause No. 654 of 2012 and there was no evidence the applicant objected to the distribution. The court could not injunct registered owners from their own parcel. However, since the defendant was putting up development on the contested property, preservation via injunction was warranted pending trial.

p. 4
02

Clean hands and material non-disclosure

Holding

Catherine Njeri's application failed because she was guilty of material non-disclosure, having filed a fresh suit and injunction application while ELC 297 of 2014 over the same subject matter was pending, instead of filing a counterclaim

Reasoning

The court found she knew of the earlier suit but chose to file a separate suit and seek injunctive relief. Being an equitable remedy, an injunction could not issue to a party undeserving of equitable relief. Her application was dismissed entirely with costs.

p. 4
03

Mismatch between interlocutory and permanent prayers

Holding

Catherine Njeri had not sought a permanent injunction in her main suit, so an interlocutory injunction could not issue as the orders would be at variance with the prayers in the plaint

Reasoning

The court observed that the applicant's plaint in ELC 1282 of 2014 sought declarations, cancellation of title and determination of the deceased's share, but no permanent injunction. Citing Dismas Odour Owuor v Housing Finance Company (K) Ltd, interlocutory orders at variance with permanent orders sought cannot be granted.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A registered proprietor is the absolute and indefeasible owner of land under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, subject only to fraud, misrepresentation or acquisition by illegal, unprocedural or corrupt scheme
  • An interlocutory injunction is an equitable remedy refused to a party who has not come to court with clean hands or has been guilty of material non-disclosure
  • Interlocutory injunctions cannot be granted where they are at variance with the permanent orders sought in the main suit
  • In interlocutory applications the court makes no conclusive findings of fact or law on contradictory affidavit evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2014 dismissed entirely with costs to the Defendants
  2. 2.Order issued by the Court on 18th March 2015 vacated and/or discharged for non-disclosure of material facts
  3. 3.Temporary injunction granted restraining Catherine Njeri, her agents and/or servants from damaging, wasting, constructing or carrying further development thereon, alienating or disposing of LR No. Dagoretti/Riruta/6213 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  4. 4.Costs of the Notice of Motion dated 22nd June 2015 in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSection 26(1)
  • Land Registration ActSection 25(1)
  • Land Registration ActSection 24(a)

Cases cited (8)

  • Dismas Odour Vs Housing Finance Company (K) Ltd & Another
    Nairobi HCCC No 630 of 2001
  • Giella Vs Cassman Brown & Company Ltd
    1973 (KLR) 358
  • Mwangi & Another Vs Mwangi
    (1986) KLR 328
  • Edwin Kamau Muniu Vs Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd
    Nairobi HCCC No. 1118 of 2002
  • Mbuthia Vs Jimba Credit Corporation Ltd
    1988 KLR 1
  • Airland Tours and Travel Ltd Vs National Industrial Credit Bank
    Nairobi HCCC No. 1234 of 2002
  • Jane Achieng Onyango Vs Giro Commercial Bank
    Kisumu HCCC No. 339 of 1999
  • David Kamau Gakuru Vs National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd
    Civil Appeal No 84 of 2001
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, "Rose Wangari Ndungu & another (suing on their own behalf and their own benefit and on behalf of and for the benefit of the estate of the late Mr. Stanley Ndungu Njoroge (Deceased) v Catherine Njeri [2017] KEELC 2774 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). ELC No. 297 of 2014 (consolidated with ELC No. 1282 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2774/eng@2017-05-23

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