Angela Kageni v Susan Adhiambo Odongo & another [2019] KEELC 3855 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court blocked two people from occupying a homeowner's land and ordered them to vacate, because she proved she was the registered owner.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the threshold for a temporary and mandatory injunction
Yes; the applicant established a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable loss not compensable by damages, and a clear case warranting a mandatory injunction.
The applicant produced documents showing she is the registered owner of Nairobi Block 62/1229. The application was unopposed and the case uncontroverted. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, the court found a prima facie case and irreparable harm likely to arise from trespass. Relying on Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham and Muchuha v Ripples Ltd, the court held the case sufficiently strong and clear to grant the mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage.
Costs of the application
Costs of the application were ordered to abide the outcome of the main suit rather than being awarded against the defendants.
Although the applicant sought costs against the defendants, the court, having granted the application, directed that costs of the application abide the outcome of the main suit.
Legal principles established
#- In an application for an injunction, the onus is on the applicant to satisfy the court, per the Giella v Cassman Brown principles.
- A mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage will only be granted where the case is unusually strong and clear.
- An injunction applicant must make full disclosure of relevant facts and show a legal or equitable right requiring protection.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents/defendants, their agents, servants, personal representatives and/or assigns, from alienating, occupying, trespassing, wasting or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff's ownership of Nairobi Block 62/1229 situate in Fort Jesus Estate, Kibera Jamhuri East, Nairobi, pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2.A mandatory order compelling the 1st and 2nd respondents/defendants, their agents, servants, personal representatives and/or assigns, to vacate or be forcefully removed from Nairobi Block 62/1229 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- 3.That orders (a) and (b) be enforced by the OCS, Kilimani Police Station, Nairobi.
- 4.That the costs of the application abide the outcome of the main suit.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 1(b), 2, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(c) and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Tuesday Gichuki & 3 others v South-End Properties Limited & 3 others [2022] KEELC 1609 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 1609 (KLR)10 Feb 2022
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Angela Kageni v Susan Adhiambo Odongo & another [2019] KEELC 3855 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 27th September 2017 (ELC suit, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3855/eng@2019-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.