Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 12th March 2018)· [2018] KEELC 2902 (KLR)

Hellen Chelangat Ruto v Philip Ngeno & another [2018] KEELC 2902 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 June 2018
JOJ.M ONYANGO
1,339 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kericho court declined a temporary injunction in a family land dispute, instead freezing the situation: she keeps her one acre, he keeps farming his portion.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, sister to the 1st defendant and aunt to the 2nd defendant, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 12th March 2018 under Order 40 Rules 1-4 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 3A and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with, harassing, evicting or intimidating her, or alienating her from land parcel KERICHO/KIPKELION/BARSIELE/220, registered in the name of her brother Rorogu Cheruiyot Ngeno. She deponed she had occupied the land with the registered owner's permission since 1986, and that in February 2018 the defendants trespassed, tilled the land, grazed livestock and threatened eviction. The 2nd defendant opposed, stating he had managed 1.75 acres for his grandmother, the registered owner's mother, for five years, and that the plaintiff had been given six months' notice to vacate. The sole issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Mrao v First American Bank, the court found a prima facie case and irreparable loss given her 30-plus years' occupation. However, since all parties derived their rights from the registered owner and an injunction would effectively grant the plaint's only prayer, the court, guided by Films Rover International and Panari Enterprises, declined the injunction and ordered maintenance of the status quo: the plaintiff to continue occupying her one-acre portion and the 2nd defendant to continue cultivating and managing the 1.75 acres until the suit is determined. Costs were made in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success and irreparable loss so as to merit a temporary injunction

Holding

While the plaintiff established a prima facie case and potential irreparable loss by virtue of over 30 years' occupation, the court declined the injunction because granting it would effectively determine the suit, and instead ordered maintenance of the status quo

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found the plaintiff had occupied the suit land for over 30 years with the registered owner's permission, establishing a prima facie case and irreparable loss if evicted from her only home. However, both parties derived their rights from the registered owner and an injunction would effectively grant the sole relief sought in the plaint. Guided by Films Rover International and Panari Enterprises, the court took the course carrying the lower risk of injustice: maintaining the status quo.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • At the interlocutory stage the court is not required to make final findings of contested facts and law but only to weigh the relative strength of the parties' cases
  • Where the balance of justice is unclear, the court should take whichever course carries the lower risk of injustice if it turns out to have been wrong

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Status quo to be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit: the plaintiff to continue to occupy and use the one acre portion she has been occupying
  2. 2.The 2nd defendant to continue to cultivate and manage the farm (1.75 acres) on behalf of his grandmother until the suit is heard and determined
  3. 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 3A
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 63(c)

Cases cited (6)

  • Giella V Cassman Brown & Company Ltd
    1973 EA 358
  • Amir Suleiman V Amboseli Resort Limited
    (2004) eKLR
  • Films Rover International
    1986 3 All ER 772
  • Mrao V First American Bank of Kenya Limited
    (2003) eKLR
  • Mbuthia Vs Jimba Credit Corporation Ltd
    (1988) KLR1
  • Panari Enterprises Limited V Lijoodi & 2 Others
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 3A and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hellen Chelangat Ruto v Philip Ngeno & another [2018] KEELC 2902 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 12th March 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2902/eng@2018-06-13

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