Pink Pearl Investment Limited v All Noor Hillow Huka & 5 others [2017] KEELC 2984 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court

26 April 2017

EOE. O. Obaga

917 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

A Nairobi court blocked suspected land grabbers from dealing with a company's property, showing courts will act fast to protect registered landowners.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The applicant, a limited liability company and registered owner of LR No.1870/111/47 (originally registered in the name of George Edwin Amolo, deceased, and acquired through Bellway Gardens Limited), moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 9th January 2015 seeking temporary injunctions restraining the Respondents from transferring, alienating, registering or varying instruments over, or otherwise dealing with the suit property, and from interfering with its quiet possession. The applicant's concerns arose in October 2014 when one Harish Patel told a director that the land belonged to a state house person, 'Mr Wambugu', willing to refund the purchase price with interest. The directors lodged a complaint at Parklands Police Station, discovered a land rent payment request in the name of the 1st Respondent bearing the applicant's rent account number, were told the lands file was missing, had an indemnity rejected at the lands office, issued a press caution, and notified the National Land Commission, which did nothing. The 1st Respondent denied any interest in the land, suggesting his name may have been used in a fraudulent scheme; the 6th Respondent claimed improper joinder. At hearing all parties except the 6th Respondent did not oppose the orders. The court found the circumstances typical of land-grabbing tricks, allowed the application in terms of prayers (4), (5), (6) and (8), and granted the injunctions with costs.

Key legal issues

Whether temporary injunction was warranted on the material presented

Holding

Yes - the applicant established a basis for injunction; all parties except the 6th Respondent did not oppose the orders, and the circumstances evidenced an attempted fraudulent deprivation of the suit land.

Reasoning

The applicant produced a land rent payment request in the name of the 1st Respondent referencing the same rent account number as the applicant's for the suit land, raising suspicion of fraud. The lands office file was missing, an indemnity offered by the directors was rejected, complaints to authorities went unheeded, and the directors had been intimidated to relinquish their interest. The court found this typical of land-grabbing tricks and granted prayers (4), (5) and (6), with costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

Where circumstances suggest a fraudulent scheme to deprive a registered owner of land, the court will grant injunctions to preserve the property pending full determination.

Court orders

1.Temporary injunction granted in terms of prayer (4) restraining the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents from transferring, alienating, registering or varying any instrument over, or dealing with the suit property or interfering with the applicant's quiet possession
2.Temporary injunction granted in terms of prayer (5) restraining the 1st Respondent, by himself or through agents, servants, employees or persons acting under him, from transferring, alienating, encroaching, registering any instrument or dealing with the suit property or interfering with the applicant's quiet possession
3.Temporary injunction granted in terms of prayer (6) restraining the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents as in prayer (4), pending hearing and determination of the suit
4.Costs of the application provided for in terms of prayer (8)

Jurisdiction invoked: Inherent civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (Notice of Motion dated 9th January 2015 in a pending suit)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Pink Pearl Investment Limited v All Noor Hillow Huka & 5 others [2017] KEELC 2984 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2984/eng@2017-04-26

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