Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2019)· [2020] KEELC 1383 (KLR)

Amu Ranch Cooperative Society v Lamu County Government & 6 others [2020] KEELC 1383 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 September 2020
JOJ.O. Olola
1,491 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court stopped the Lamu County Government from surveying or taking ranch land until compensation terms are agreed and the case is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Amu Ranch Co-operative Society, registered proprietor of LR No. 26867, Lamu measuring 25,003 Ha, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2019 seeking an injunction to restrain the Lamu County Government, its officers, the County Surveyor, the National Land Commission and the Attorney General from entering, surveying, demarcating or allocating the suit property pending the hearing of the suit. The Plaintiff alleged an unlawful and arbitrary resolution by the County to acquire over 10,000 acres without following the legal procedure on compulsory acquisition and without compensation. The County Respondents, through the affidavit of Vincent Osewe, denied any compulsory acquisition, asserting instead that following investigations and recommendations by the National Land Commission, negotiations were under way for the surrender of 10,000 acres for the settlement of squatters, which the Plaintiff had agreed to subject to compensation with land of similar size. The County Surveyor and the Attorney General filed Grounds of Opposition contending the application was premature, misconceived and had not met the injunction threshold. Applying the Giella principles as restated in Robert Mugo Wa Karanja v Eco Bank and Charter House Investment Ltd v Simon K. Sang, the court found prima facie evidence of intended alienation, noting the County Assembly's resolution to survey the land and the unagreed modalities of compensation. The court held the Plaintiff was entitled to be apprehensive about deprivation without compensation and allowed the application, maintaining the status quo, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Threshold for temporary injunction

Holding

The Giella principles apply: prima facie case with reasonable prospect of success, irreparable damage not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience

Reasoning

The court adopted the statement in Robert Mugo Wa Karanja v Eco Bank on Order 40 Rule 1 and the Court of Appeal's restatement in Charter House Investment Ltd v Simon K. Sang, reaffirming the Giella tripartite test. Injunctions are equitable and discretionary, not a matter of right, and the court balances the conveniences and possible injuries of the parties and third parties before granting relief.

p. 2
02

Whether a prima facie case of intended alienation without compensation existed

Holding

Yes - correspondence showed the County Government's intent to acquire 10,000 acres while modalities and compensation remained unagreed, justifying apprehension and maintenance of the status quo

Reasoning

The Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of 25,003 Ha since 2005. The County Assembly had resolved to survey the land and committees had been formed for planning and surveying. Although the Plaintiff had conceded to ceding part of the land, the modalities, including compensation with land of similar size, were not agreed, giving it good ground to apprehend deprivation without compensation.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party may be granted a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo where there is prima facie evidence of intended alienation of the suit property

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2019 is allowed
  2. 2.An order of injunction restraining the Defendants from entering, surveying, demarcating, allocating the suit property or interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet possession pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 1
  • Survey Act Cap 299Section 23(2)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Not specified (rights to property and national values referred to)

Cases cited (2)

  • Robert Mugo Wa Karanja –vs- Eco Bank (Kenya) Ltd & Another
    (2019) eKLR
  • Charter House Investment Ltd –vs- Simon K. Sang and Others
    Civil Appeal No. 315 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court) - not expressly cited in the excerpt

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Amu Ranch Cooperative Society v Lamu County Government & 6 others [2020] KEELC 1383 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1383/eng@2020-09-18

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