Samuel Ndiba Njuho v Justus Kisemer Keboi & 23 Others [2020] KEELC 2735 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court froze all deals on disputed Kajiado land, warning that anyone buying or lending on property tied up in a lawsuit loses out.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established against the charging bank (10th defendant) whose security derived from a transfer effected during the pendency of the suit
Yes. The plaintiff's title to Plot No. 1550 was uncontroverted; all derivative transactions occurred during the pendency of the suit in breach of lis pendens; the 10th defendant's charge would fall if the root title is nullified.
Plot No. 1550 was registered in the plaintiff's name and was the subject of an active suit claiming fraudulent transfer to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant's transfer to the 5th defendant, the subdivisions, the sale to the 9th defendant and the charge to the 10th defendant all occurred while the suit was pending. If the 1st defendant's title is found void at trial, all derivative titles and the charge are void on account of lis pendens.
Irreparable harm
The court was satisfied the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm not compensable in damages if the injunction was withheld.
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found both a prima facie case and likely irreparable harm, obviating reliance on the balance of convenience. The 5th defendant did not respond and the other defendants did not oppose the application, leaving the plaintiff's evidence uncontroverted.
Legal principles established
#- The doctrine of lis pendens bars dealing with landed property under litigation to the detriment of parties to the pending litigation, and such transfers are bound by the judgment in the suit.
- A purchaser of property pendente lite is bound by the decree as if he had notice, whether or not he was an innocent purchaser for value.
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of Motion application dated 16th March, 2018 allowed in terms of prayer (c) thereof
- 2.Temporary injunction restraining the 2nd and 5th to 24th defendants from selling, transferring, charging or dealing in any manner with L.R Nos. Kajiado/Kisaju/1549, 1550, 13222 to 13226, 13881, 14085 to 140102 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Costs of the application to be paid by the 10th defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil suit; interlocutory injunction jurisdiction under inherent powers/civil procedure (provision not stated in the ruling)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samuel Ndiba Njuho v Justus Kisemer Keboi & 23 Others [2020] KEELC 2735 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). High Court Suit (filed 4th March, 2008) - number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2735/eng@2020-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.