Pink Properties Ltd v National Land Commission & 2 others [2018] KEELC 499 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped the National Land Commission from revoking a property buyer's title, protecting purchasers who check titles before buying.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
The court held that the Plaintiff, as a purchaser for value who conducted an official search and held registered title free of any evident blemish, demonstrated a clear and unmistakable right to the suit property directly threatened by the proposed revocation of title
The court traced the chequered history of the suit property: adjudication to Samuel Kanogo Ritho in 1978, cancellation by the Commissioner of Lands, fresh allocation to Simeon Patrick Hinzano, and the 2007 judicial review orders compelling Hinzano's registration. Hinzano's chain of transfers led to the Plaintiff's 2011 purchase after an official search. Nothing suggested any defect in the Plaintiff's title at purchase, and the Gazette Notice No. 6866 directing vesting of the property to Ritho threatened a registered proprietor's clear right, establishing a prima facie case per Mrao Ltd and Nguruman Ltd.
Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
Revocation of the Plaintiff's title would cause unnecessary harm and damage, as the Plaintiff had spent over Kshs 60,000,000 on construction and the 3rd Defendant had never been in occupation
The court noted the Plaintiff had commenced construction of a residential twin house after obtaining the relevant approvals and had expended sums in excess of Kshs 60,000,000, a figure still rising. The 3rd Defendant was never in occupation. If the title were revoked and the revocation later found to offend the 2007 judicial review orders, the Plaintiff would suffer unnecessary harm; pending trial, where the cancellation of the initial title could be interrogated at length, the Plaintiff deserved protection from irreparable harm.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella -vs- Cassman Brown conditions for injunctive relief are separate, distinct and sequential hurdles that an applicant must surmount
- A prima facie case in civil cases is one in which an apparently infringed right calls for an explanation or rebuttal, and it is more than an arguable case
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendants jointly and severally, whether by themselves, servants, agents, employees and/or officers, from vesting the suit property to the 3rd Defendant or any other person, revoking the Plaintiff's title, entering, trespassing, taking possession, wasting, damaging or in any other way interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet possession of LR No. Chembe/Kibabamshe/272 including the entire improvements thereon pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court/Environment and Land Court to grant interim injunctive relief under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules (not expressly cited; jurisdiction inferred from the interlocutory application before the court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pink Properties Ltd v National Land Commission & 2 others [2018] KEELC 499 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/499/eng@2018-12-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.