Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment (ELC suit, Ngong)· [2020] KEELC 2791 (KLR)

Ruth Wakapa & 2 others v Mburu Gathiori Nduati & another [2020] KEELC 2791 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 April 2020
3,013 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

#

A Kenyan land court refused both sides' injunctions in a boundary dispute, sending the access road question to the Land Registrar for determination.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Environment and Land Court decision by Christine Ochieng J, delivered on 23rd April 2020, determined two competing applications in a neighbourhood land dispute at Ngong. The Plaintiffs, registered proprietors of five parcels (NGONG/NGONG/52126, 52131, 67180, 52128 and 52129), sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants, their neighbours, from trespassing, interfering with their properties or harassing them, and sought police enforcement. The Defendants opposed, asserting the Plaintiffs had encroached on a public access road reserve serving their parcels, alleging malicious destruction of the 1st Defendant's fence, and citing complaints to the Land Registrar and a 2014 National Land Commission notice requiring the 1st Plaintiff to remove developments from the road reserve. The 2nd Defendant cross-applied for a mandatory injunction compelling removal of constructions on the road reserve. The court framed two issues: entitlement to an interlocutory injunction and to a mandatory injunction. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman, the court found the Plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case; their conduct and non-disclosure of the NLC notice betrayed them, and the remaining conditions fell away. The mandatory injunction was also declined because the existence and location of the access road required interpretation of survey maps, a mandate of the District Land Registrar under the Land Act. Both applications were disallowed, the parties were referred to the District Land Registrar Ngong within 60 days to determine the access road dispute and report to court, and costs were made costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction

Holding

They did not; their equitable conduct betrayed them and they failed to disclose material facts, so the first Giella condition failed and the other conditions need not be considered

Reasoning

It was not disputed the parties were registered proprietors of neighbouring parcels. However, the National Land Commission had in March 2014 written to the 1st Plaintiff to cease encroaching on a road reserve, a boundary dispute had been referred to the Land Registrar, and the 1st Plaintiff's son had been charged for malicious damage to the 1st Defendant's fence. Injunction being an equitable remedy, the Plaintiffs' conduct and non-disclosure of these facts defeated the application at the first hurdle.

p. 3
02

Whether the 2nd Defendant was entitled to a mandatory injunction to remove structures from the road reserve

Holding

The mandatory injunction was declined because the existence and location of the access road required determination by the District Land Registrar under the Land Act

Reasoning

Although both sides were registered proprietors, there was an unresolved dispute over the access road, and no report from the Land Registrar was presented. The court took judicial notice that a map needed interpretation as to the road's location, a matter within the District Land Registrar's mandate under the Land Act. A mandatory injunction requires a clear case or special circumstances, which were absent pending that determination.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The three Giella v Cassman Brown conditions for an interlocutory injunction are separate, sequential hurdles; if a prima facie case is not established, irreparable injury and balance of convenience need not be considered
  • A mandatory injunction will not normally be granted on an interlocutory application absent special circumstances or a clear case

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 1st July 2019 is disallowed.
  2. 2.The 2nd Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2019 is disallowed.
  3. 3.The parties are directed to present themselves before the District Land Registrar Ngong within 60 days from the date of the order to determine the access road dispute and present a report in court.
  4. 4.Costs will be in the cause.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1, 2, 3, 7 and 10; Order 51 Rules 1-3
  • Land Actnot specified

Cases cited (14)

  • Giella Vs Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
  • Mrao V First American Bank Limited & 2 Others
    (2003) KLR 125
  • Panari Enterprises Limited V Lijoodi & 2 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Auni Bhaiji & 4 Others V Chief Magistrate, Milimani Law Courts & 2 others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Lucy Wangui Gachara V Minudi Okemba Lore
    (2015) eKLR
  • Rose V Plenty & Another
    (1976) 1 ALL ER 97
  • Muwonge V Attorney General Of Uganda
    1967 EA 17
  • Peter Muchiri Mwangi V Mololine Services Ltd & Another
    (2006) eKLR
  • Vic Preston Murithi Ruchabi V Mary Wangari & 3 Others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Uhuru Highway Development Limited V Central Bank of Kenya & 2 others
    (1995) eKLR
  • Kyangavo V Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & Another
    (2004) eKLR
  • Mugure Mahinda V Ali Mohammed Farah
    (2016) eKLR
  • Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nelson & 2 others
    Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2014 (UR)
  • Kenya Breweries Limited vs. Washington Okeyo
    (2002) EA 109
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act; applications under sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ruth Wakapa & 2 others v Mburu Gathiori Nduati & another [2020] KEELC 2791 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment (ELC suit, Ngong). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2791/eng@2020-04-23

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