Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 4th December 2018 (in pending suit, Mombasa)· [2019] KEELC 4407 (KLR)

Kenya Ports Authority & another v kaba Investment Limited & 8 others [2019] KEELC 4407 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
27 February 2019
3,057 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court stopped development of disputed Mombasa plots, ruling that a failed judicial review case doesn't block a fresh land ownership lawsuit.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs (Kenya Ports Authority and its pension scheme) moved by notice of motion dated 4th December 2018 under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking injunctions restraining the defendants from developing plots Mombasa/Block XXIII/227–230, alleged to have been illegally created by the Commissioner for Lands on a public access road excised from the former Mombasa/Block XXIII/179, which the 1st plaintiff claimed devolved on it from the East African Railways and Harbours Administration and East African Harbours Corporation. The 1st defendant opposed, asserting genuine titles acquired for value and raising a preliminary objection that the dispute was res judicata, having been litigated in judicial review proceedings (HC Misc. No.124 of 2001) and Civil Appeal No.255 of 2003. The 2nd defendant denied undertaking any works on the properties. The court overruled the preliminary objection, holding that the judicial review proceedings addressed process not merits, and the Court of Appeal had expressly left the substantive dispute to be resolved by ordinary civil suit, so Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act was not triggered. Applying the Giella principles as enriched by the Suleiman v Amboseli Resort status quo/lower-risk-of-injustice approach, the court found a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable harm not compensable in damages should the land be developed to conclusion, and the balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs. Temporary injunction issued in terms of prayers 4 and 5, with costs of the application in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata / preliminary objection

Holding

The preliminary objection on res judicata fails because the judicial review proceedings and appeal never determined the dispute on the merits

Reasoning

The High Court's certiorari quashing the titles was set aside on appeal, and the Court of Appeal expressly noted judicial review addresses the decision-making process, not merits, directing the plaintiff to sue in the ordinary way. Thus no former suit was heard and finally decided as contemplated by Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the present suit is not barred.

p. 3
02

Whether a prima facie case and irreparable harm were established for an interlocutory injunction

Holding

Yes - the plaintiffs established a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable harm not compensable in damages, and the balance of convenience favoured them

Reasoning

Both parties claim the same land; the defendants hold title documents while the plaintiffs rely on Legal Notices devolving the former plot. The court found the plaintiffs showed their right over the suit property, that development to conclusion would change the land totally causing unquantifiable loss, and that preserving the status quo served the overriding objective and the lower-risk-of-injustice principle.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An interlocutory injunction may be granted on the principle that the court should maintain the status quo where doing so carries the lower risk of injustice
  • A dispute not heard and finally decided on the merits in judicial review proceedings is not res judicata in a subsequent civil suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction granted in terms of prayers 4 and 5 of the notice of motion dated 4th December 2018
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A and 7
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40; Order 51 Rule 1
  • Public Roads and Roads of Access ActSection 9 (Cap 399)
  • Legal Notice No.19 of 1969
  • Legal Notice No.160 of 2001

Cases cited (12)

  • Henry Muthee Kathurima –v- Commissioner of Lands & Another
    (2015) eKLR
  • Nelson Kazungu Chai & 9 Others –v- Pwani University College
    (2017) eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd –v- Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd
    (2017) eKLR
  • Commissioner of Lands -v- Kunste Hotels Ltd
    (1995-1998) 1 EA 1
  • Republic –v- Land Registrar, Taita Taveta District & Another
    (2015) eKLR
  • Livingstone Mumini Ntutu –v- Minister for Lands & 4 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Giella –v- Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Suleiman –v- Amboseli Resort Ltd
    (2004) KLR 589
  • Films Rover International
    (1986) 3 ALL ER 772
  • Kenya Ports Authority –v- G. Wayumba & Others
    HCCC No.245 of 2004
  • Republic –v- Commissioner of Lands, Municipal Council of Mombasa & Akaba Investments Ltd Ex-parte Kenya Ports Authority
    HC Misc. Application No.124 of 2001
  • Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2003
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Ports Authority & another v kaba Investment Limited & 8 others [2019] KEELC 4407 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 4th December 2018 (in pending suit, Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4407/eng@2019-02-27

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