Jesinter Wairimu Karaba v Rifaan Limited & 3 others [2017] KEELC 3419 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with probability of success
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case; her claim of non-disclosure and undervaluation was contradicted by affidavit evidence and motivated by the rise in land prices
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles. The applicant sold four acres in 2005 at Kshs.100,000 per acre and three acres in 2010 at Kshs.1,000,000 per acre, prices the court found to be the prevailing market rates. Her 2014 valuation reflected the later construction of the Eastern By-Pass rather than value at the time of sale. The allegation of non-disclosure by Faiza Ngatia was contradicted by evidence that the applicant signed a transfer bearing the advocate's photograph and knew her well.
Whether non-disclosure of Faiza Ngatia's directorship in the first defendant vitiated the sale agreements
No; the applicant knew Faiza Ngatia well, signed a transfer bearing her photograph, and the agreements were lawfully entered into
The court found that the applicant had dealt with Faiza Ngatia and had signed a transfer in respect of the three acres sold to the first defendant which bore the advocate's photograph. The claim that the second defendant's directors were introduced by the advocate was also contradicted by the second defendant's director, who stated he came from the same village as the applicant and that it was she who approached him proposing the sale.
Whether the sale price was a gross undervaluation justifying rescission
No; the prices paid were the prevailing market prices at the time of sale, and the applicant's reliance on a 2014 valuation was misplaced
The court traced the appreciation of land prices from the 2005 sale at Kshs.100,000 per acre through the third respondent's sale at Kshs.130,000 per acre, the second defendant's resale at Kshs.250,000 per acre, to the 2010 sale at Kshs.1,000,000 per acre. The Eastern By-Pass was not in place when the property was sold, and the 2014 valuation took into account developments that postdated the transactions.
Legal principles established
#- For a temporary injunction the applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case with probability of success, that damages would not adequately compensate, and where in doubt the court decides on a balance of convenience
- An injunction being an equitable remedy, the applicant must come to court with clean hands
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 25th November 2014 seeking temporary injunction is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court to grant interlocutory injunctive relief in a pending suit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jesinter Wairimu Karaba v Rifaan Limited & 3 others [2017] KEELC 3419 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Notice of Motion dated 25th November 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3419/eng@2017-03-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.