Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 24/7/12 (suit number not stated in the judgment)· [2018] KEELC 3144 (KLR)

Jane Wairimu Ngure (Suing as administrator of the Estate of Peter Tharao Ngure (deceased) v National Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others [2018] KEELC 3144 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 May 2018
1,860 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan widow blocked the sale of her family land pending trial, because the disputed auction raised fraud questions courts won't decide without a full hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 24/7/12 seeking a temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of a suit concerning the property Loc.20/Githuri/1937. The Applicant, administrator of the estate of her late husband Peter Tharao Ngure, alleged that the property, registered in her late husband's name and charged to the 1st Respondent bank to secure a loan for the 2nd Respondent, was sold through a non-existent auction to the 3rd Respondent without the knowledge of the deceased or herself, and that the Respondents were now inviting third-party purchasers to the land. The 3rd Respondent opposed, asserting she purchased the land at a 1995 auction, had been in possession for 18 years, and that damages would suffice. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles as restated in Nguruman Limited, the court found a genuine and arguable case raising fraud in the auction, held that damages would not adequately compensate in a land dispute involving the Applicant's matrimonial home and livelihood (especially absent any firm undertaking to pay damages), and found the balance of convenience favoured preservation. The court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from advertising, selling, alienating or dealing with the suit property pending trial, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie case

Holding

The Applicant established a prima facie case with likelihood of success

Reasoning

There are two competing claims to ownership - the 3rd Respondent's registered title following the 1995 auction and the Applicant's contention that the auction was non-existent and fraudulent. Whether fraud occurred is a matter for trial; at the interlocutory stage the court need only find a genuine and arguable case on the material on record.

p. 3
02

Irreparable harm

Holding

Damages would not adequately compensate the Applicant

Reasoning

The Applicant claimed loss of her matrimonial home and only source of livelihood. Though she placed little evidentiary material, the 3rd Respondent did not deny the averment and gave no firm undertaking to pay damages. Following Muiruri v Bank of Baroda, land disputes are not ordinarily compensable in damages.

p. 3
03

Balance of convenience

Holding

Balance of convenience favoured preservation of the suit property pending trial

Reasoning

Given the competing interests over ownership, the Applicant's continued possession, and the inadequacy of damages, preservation pending hearing and determination of the suit was the just course.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and failing that, balance of convenience
  • Damages are generally inadequate compensation in land disputes

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction restraining the defendants from advertising for sale, alienating, selling, transferring, disposing or in any way dealing with the property known as Loc.20/Githuri/1937 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.Costs be in the cause

Authorities

#

Cases cited (4)

  • Giella vs. Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    CA No. 77 of 2012
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others
    [2003] eKLR
  • Muiruri Vs Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Ltd
    2001 eKLR 183
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; original civil jurisdiction over the interlocutory application in the pending suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jane Wairimu Ngure (Suing as administrator of the Estate of Peter Tharao Ngure (deceased) v National Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others [2018] KEELC 3144 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Notice of Motion dated 24/7/12 (suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3144/eng@2018-05-17

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