Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (motion dated 21st December, 2018 filed 11th January, 2019, contemporaneous with a suit of even date)· [2020] KEELC 2310 (KLR)

Pamela Adhiambo Obengo v Stephen N Mugo & 3 others [2020] KEELC 2310 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 June 2020
AKA. K. Kaniaru
1,585 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

#

In a Kericho land dispute, the court refused to favour either side and instead froze all activity on both overlapping parcels until ownership is finally decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Pamela Adhiambo Obengo, moved the Environment and Land Court at Kericho by motion dated 21st December 2018, seeking an interim injunction restraining the respondents from constructing on, encroaching on, dealing with or interfering with parcel LR NO 631/1428, IR NO 76596 in Kericho Municipality, pending hearing of her suit in which she alleges the 1st respondent illegally entered her land, evicted her tenants and demolished structures. Only the 1st respondent, Stephen N Mugo, responded, asserting he is on his own unsurveyed residential plot No 100 bought from Andrew Kipyegon Langat, and denying occupation of the applicant's land. The application was canvassed by written submissions, with the 1st respondent arguing the applicant had established neither a prima facie case nor irreparable loss. The court noted a survey report dated 20th August 2019 showing the two claimed parcels physically overlap, with the confusion originating from official government sources rather than either party. Declining to grant or refuse the injunction as prayed, the judge invoked the inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, following Otieno v Ougo & Another (No 2), that injunctions preserve the subject matter pending trial. The court issued a mutual status quo order restraining both parties from further activities, dealings or development on either parcel, with existing structures to remain intact. The applicant's application was dismissed, with no order as to costs, the court holding officialdom to blame for the dispute.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant established entitlement to an interim injunction

Holding

The application was dismissed, but not on the merits of the respondent's opposition; the court instead issued a mutual status quo order preserving both disputed parcels under its inherent jurisdiction

Reasoning

A survey report dated 20th August 2019 showed the two parcels the parties claim overlap, with neither party causing the overlap, the confusion originating from official government sources. A one-sided injunction would have prejudiced the 1st respondent, and dismissal simpliciter would have allowed his development to continue. A status quo injunction binding both sides best served the ends of justice.

p. 2
02

Whether the status quo order serves the interests of justice

Holding

Yes - preservation of both claimed parcels was paramount pending determination of ownership

Reasoning

The court reasoned that granting or refusing the injunction as prayed would each prejudice one side, allowing one party to develop the land while ownership remained unresolved. Invoking Section 3A and the maxim that an act of the court shall prejudice no one, the court restrained both parties and allowed existing structures to remain intact but forbade further development.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An injunction is granted to preserve the subject matter pending the hearing and determination of the action
  • The court may invoke its inherent power under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, guided by the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, to issue status quo orders that prejudice no party

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Both the 1st respondent and the applicant and/or their agents, servants, assignees, employees or any other person acting at their behest restrained from conducting further activities, or selling, transferring, alienating, leasing or in any way interfering with both land parcels NO L.R NO 631/1428, IR 76596 and/or unsurveyed plot NO 100 until the suit is heard and determined and/or until further orders
  2. 2.The structures on the property, whether belonging to the 1st respondent or applicant, to remain intact but no further developments to take place
  3. 3.No order as to costs - each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSection 26
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)Section 3A
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 40 Rules 1(a)(b), 2(1)(2), 4(1)(2), 5
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • OTIENO VS OUGO & ANOTHER (NO2)
    (1987) KLR 400
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 26 of the Land Registration Act; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21); Order 40 Rules 1(a)(b), 2(1)(2), 4(1)(2), 5 and Order 51(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Pamela Adhiambo Obengo v Stephen N Mugo & 3 others [2020] KEELC 2310 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (motion dated 21st December, 2018 filed 11th January, 2019, contemporaneous with a suit of even date). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2310/eng@2020-06-03

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