AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 26th March, 2019 (suit over LR NO. CIS MARA/OLOKURTO/60)· [2020] KEELC 2120 (KLR)
Republic v Cabinet Secretary for Lands & 2 others; Paul Morombi Saoli (Representing Leposo Ole Saoli, Now Deceased) (Interested Party) Exparte Soitara Ole Saoli [2020] KEELC 2120 (KLR)
Environment and Land Court / High Court at Narok
25 February 2020
529 words in judgment
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner's bid to stop farming on disputed land failed because the court found he did not meet the legal test for an injunction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This was a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 26th March, 2019 in which Paul Morombi Saoli, the applicant, sought an interlocutory injunction restraining all parties to the suit from cultivating, planting, sowing, suing for economic gain or otherwise adversely dealing with LR NO. CIS MARA/OLOKURTO/60 pending hearing and determination of the application. He further sought that the Narok North Sub County Police Commander be sent to visit the site to confirm adherence to court orders. The applicant alleged that while a contempt of court application by the respondent, Soitara Ole Saoli, dated 7th December, 2018 was pending, the respondent moved into the suit property and cultivated it, including portions ordinarily reserved for the interested party, in disregard of status quo orders, exposing the applicant to immeasurable loss. He attached photographs of the cultivated land. The respondent, in a replying affidavit dated 17th April, 2019, dismissed the application as frivolous, malicious and an abuse of court process, denied trespassing beyond the temporary boundaries, challenged the applicant's photographs as false and misleading, and produced his own photographs showing the land was not cultivated; he also urged the court to appoint an independent officer to visit the land and prepare a joint report. Having considered the affidavits and submissions, the court held that the application had not satisfied the ingredients for orders of injunction and dismissed it with no orders as to costs. The ruling was delivered in open court at Narok on 25th February, 2020 by Mohammed Kullow, Judge.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the applicant met the criteria for interlocutory injunction
Holding
The court found the ingredients not satisfied and dismissed the motion.
Reasoning
The applicant alleged that while his contempt application was pending, the respondent moved onto the suit property and cultivated land reserved to the interested party, breaching status quo orders. The respondent denied trespass, branded the application an abuse of process, and produced contrary photos. On the affidavits and submissions, the court was unpersuaded that the threshold for injunction was met and dismissed the application without costs.
p. 2
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking an interlocutory injunction must satisfy the established ingredients for such orders before relief can issue
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 26th March, 2019 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC to grant interim injunctive relief pending determination of suit and related contempt application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Cabinet Secretary for Lands & 2 others; Paul Morombi Saoli (Representing Leposo Ole Saoli, Now Deceased) (Interested Party) Exparte Soitara Ole Saoli [2020] KEELC 2120 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 26th March, 2019 (suit over LR NO. CIS MARA/OLOKURTO/60). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2120/eng@2020-02-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.