Lucy Wanjiku Nyamu v County Land Registrar Kajiado & 4 others [2018] KEELC 4238 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court preserved a disputed Kajiado land parcel with a status quo order and inhibition instead of an injunction, sending the ownership battle to full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes. The Plaintiff's claim over the suit land was not baseless; the conflicting searches and titles raised curious questions about how both the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant retained titles to the same land, best resolved at trial
The court compared the official searches: searches of 6th June 2013 and 22nd January 2014 showed the Plaintiff as proprietor, while a search of 24th June 2011 showed the 3rd and 4th Defendants, and one of 30th July 2009 showed the 2nd Defendant. With the Plaintiff's title dated 14th May 2008 and the 2nd Defendant's title dated 13th February 1998, and allegations of a fraudulently generated Green Card, the court found competing claims requiring full trial but sufficient to show a prima facie case.
Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages
Yes. Since the Plaintiff claims title inherited from her late husband, she would suffer irreparable harm if the orders were not granted
The court noted that the Plaintiff, the 3rd and 4th Defendants all claim ownership of land now charged to the Interested Party to secure a loan, and there are pending allegations of fraud and a criminal case against the 2nd Defendant for obtaining land registration by false pretence. Given the fraud allegations raise triable issues and the Plaintiff's inherited title, the court found irreparable harm would follow refusal.
Where the balance of convenience lies
With several parties claiming title over the suit land, preservation was necessary as the title may be wasted away if not preserved
Applying Paul Gitonga Wanjau v Gathuthi Tea Factory, the court held that with multiple parties staking claims over the suit land and the sanctity of title in dispute, the interests of justice favoured preserving the property pending full trial, leading to the status quo and inhibition orders rather than an outright injunction.
Legal principles established
#- The Giella v Cassman Brown principles govern the grant of temporary injunctions: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience
- A substantial allegation of fraud raises a triable issue and the party alleging it must be given an opportunity to prove it
- On balance of convenience, the court determines which party will suffer the greater harm and seeks to maintain the status quo
Court orders
#- 1.Current status quo be maintained pending the outcome of the suit
- 2.An inhibition order be registered by the Land Registrar Kajiado against land parcel number KAJIADO/KISAJU/1693 measuring approximately 4.05 hectares, of any dealings, lease or charge pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Costs in the cause
- 4.Parties urged to comply with Order 11 and set the suit down for hearing as soon as possible
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 40 Rules 1, 2 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lucy Wanjiku Nyamu v County Land Registrar Kajiado & 4 others [2018] KEELC 4238 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Notice of Motion dated 15th March 2017 (ELC Suit, Kajiado). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4238/eng@2018-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.