Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (related to Embu ELC No. 96 of 2017 – Lincoln Muthui t/a Linco Stores v Postal Corporation of Kenya & Another)· [2019] KEELC 2598 (KLR)

Martin Murithi Njeru & another (Suing on their behalf and on behalf of Kenyan Citizens) v Postal Corporation of Kenya & 4 others [2019] KEELC 2598 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
4 July 2019
2,377 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed an injunction over an Embu public land lease because construction was already complete, making orders pointless.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a notice of motion dated 25th October 2018 under Articles 1, 2, 3, 22, 23, 35, 62, 162, 165, 258 and 259 of the Constitution and Rule 23 of the Mutunga Rules, the Petitioners sought temporary orders restraining the Postal Corporation of Kenya (1st Respondent) and Fave Gas Oil Co. Ltd (2nd Respondent) from developing, alienating, transferring or dealing with land parcel No. Embu/Municipality/986 pending determination of their petition, plus an order directing the OCS Embu to ensure compliance. They contended the lease to the 2nd Respondent violated the Constitution for lack of public participation and registration, was created despite a caution and restriction, and that development on the land breached EMCA, 1999. The Respondents opposed: the 1st Respondent asserted it was a state corporation lawfully dealing with its property and cited a dismissed injunction application in Embu ELC No. 96 of 2017; the 2nd Respondent said it had taken possession and developed the property; the 5th Respondent swore that the EIA licence was duly issued. Y.M. Angima J framed four issues. The court held the suit property is public land under Article 62(1)(m) despite the 1st Respondent's corporate personality, and that the application was not barred by sections 6 or 7 of the Civil Procedure Act since the Petitioners were not parties to the earlier suit. However, no prima facie case was established; non-registration of a lease does not void it, no EMCA violation was demonstrated, the construction was already complete making any injunction futile, and there was no imminent danger of alienation. The application was dismissed in its entirety, with costs in the cause. Ruling delivered at Embu on 4th July 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether land held by a state corporation is public land

Holding

Yes. Land held by a state corporation wholly owned by the Government of Kenya constitutes public land under Article 62(1)(m) of the Constitution unless classified as community or private land.

Reasoning

The court agreed the 1st Respondent was not a state organ under Article 260, but held Article 62(1) contains other categories of public land beyond unalienated government land and land held by state organs, including land not classified as private or community land under Article 62(1)(m). Corporate personality is merely a convenient legal device enabling a public body to perform statutory functions and does not convert public property into private property.

p. 3
02

Whether the application was barred by section 6 (sub judice) or section 7 (res judicata) of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

No. Although some issues and the subject matter were the same as in Embu ELC No. 96 of 2017, the commonality-of-parties requirement was not met as the Petitioners were not parties to the previous suit.

Reasoning

Sections 6 and 7 require the matters in issue to be directly and substantially in issue in another suit between the same parties litigating under the same title. The Petitioners here had no opportunity to raise their grievances in the earlier injunction application since they were not parties to it. The application therefore could not be considered an abuse of process at that stage.

p. 3
03

Whether an interlocutory injunction should issue

Holding

No. The Petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case; and in any event an injunction would be futile since construction was complete, and no imminent danger of alienation was shown.

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court declined definitive pronouncements on the lease's legality, noting a caution or restriction does not render a lease illegal and non-registration does not void it. No material suggested EMCA non-compliance; the 5th Respondent swore the EIA licence was duly issued and the Petitioners never appealed to the National Environment Tribunal or protested. Since an operational gas station and supermarket already existed, equity would do nothing in vain.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The corporate personality of a state corporation does not convert its landed property into private land; land held by a wholly state-owned corporation is public land under Article 62(1)(m) unless classified as community or private land
  • An injunction cannot issue where the development sought to be restrained has already been completed, as a court will not make orders in futility
  • Non-registration of a lease does not necessarily render it illegal or void ab initio; it may operate as a contract between the parties privy thereto

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petitioners' notice of motion dated 25th October 2018 is dismissed in its entirety
  2. 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 1, 2, 3, 22, 23, 35, 62(1)(a), 62(1)(m), 62(1)(n), 165, 258, 259, 260
  • The Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013Rule 23
  • The Postal Corporation of Kenya ActNo. 3 of 1998
  • Civil Procedure Actsections 6 and 7 (Cap. 21)
  • Environmental Management Co-ordination Act1999

Cases cited (3)

  • Giella V Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    [1973] EA 358
  • Eric Makokha & 4 Others V Lawrence Sagini & 2 Others
    [1994] eKLR
  • Lincoln Muthui t/a Linco Stores Vs Postal Corporation of Kenya & Another
    Embu ELC No. 96 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 1, 2, 3, 22, 23, 35, 62, 162, 165, 258 and 259 of the Constitution of Kenya; Rule 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Martin Murithi Njeru & another (Suing on their behalf and on behalf of Kenyan Citizens) v Postal Corporation of Kenya & 4 others [2019] KEELC 2598 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment (related to Embu ELC No. 96 of 2017 – Lincoln Muthui t/a Linco Stores v Postal Corporation of Kenya & Another). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2598/eng@2019-07-04

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