Cove Investments Limited v Johana Kiprotich Rono & 2 others [2018] KEELC 2177 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ordered occupants to vacate a Nakuru property within three days after they took possession in defiance of a court order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Grant of mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage
The court granted the mandatory injunction because the 1st respondents dispossessed the petitioner in flagrant disregard of a subsisting status quo order, constituting special circumstances.
The court restated the principle that mandatory injunctions at interlocutory stage are granted only in the clearest of cases or where special circumstances exist, such as a party stealing a match. It found the petitioner's possession acknowledged by the 1st respondents and protected by the status quo order of 28 September 2017. The 1st respondents admitted possession without explaining when or how they took it, and their advocates' letter showed premeditated dispossession in knowledge of the order. This disobedience justified resetting the position.
Disobedience of court orders
Dispossession contrary to an order protecting possession cannot stand; the only remedy for a party dissatisfied with an order is to seek variation or setting aside.
Citing the Court of Appeal in Matiang'i v Miguna Miguna, the court emphasized that orders issue ex cathedra and bind all parties regardless of status. The 1st respondents regained possession while an order maintaining the petitioner's possession was in force, doing so deliberately per their advocates' letter of 20 April 2018. The court treated this as contemptuous conduct warranting restoration of the status quo ante of 28 September 2017.
Date of alleged dispossession
The precise date of dispossession was immaterial given the admissions of possession.
There was confusion as to whether the invasion occurred on 2nd or 3rd June 2018, and the 1st respondents disputed that 2nd June 2018 was a Sunday. However, since the 1st respondents admitted they now had possession and that the petitioner had possession as at 20th April 2018 while the protective order was in force, the exact date did not matter. It was sufficient that possession had been regained contrary to the court order.
Legal principles established
#- Court orders are compulsive and binding, and a party dissatisfied with an order must seek variation or setting aside, not disobey it.
- A mandatory injunction may be granted at the interlocutory stage only in special circumstances or the clearest of cases, including where a party is bent on stealing a match.
Court orders
#- 1.A mandatory injunction compelling the 1st respondents, their agents, servants, employees or any other persons acting on their behalf to vacate LR. No. Nakuru/Ol'Ongai Phase 11/34 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.The 1st respondents to immediately move out and remove all their agents, employees, servants, personnel or other persons acting on their behalf from L.R Nakuru/Ol'Ongai Phase 11/34 and restore possession to the petitioner within three (3) days from delivery of the ruling, failing which the petitioner may remove them
- 3.The Officer Commanding Menengai Police Station to provide security during the enforcement of the orders
- 4.Costs of the application awarded to the petitioner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (petition proceedings; not expressly cited in the extract)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cove Investments Limited v Johana Kiprotich Rono & 2 others [2018] KEELC 2177 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the extract (Petitioner's application in an ELC petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2177/eng@2018-07-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.