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 judgment (Notice of Motion dated 27th June 2019)· [2020] KEELC 2825 (KLR)

Imanke Ole Lekincha Lolojie & 105 others v Mailua Group Ranch & 2 others [2020] KEELC 2825 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 May 2020
COCHRISTINE OCHIENG
2,249 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kajiado Environment and Land Court dismissed members' bid to freeze Mailua Group Ranch land dealings because they couldn't prove their case with proper evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 27th June 2019 seeking a temporary injunction over the Mailua Group Ranch lands (Kajiado/Mailua/967, 968, 969, 970 and 1114 and their subdivisions), a prohibitory injunction against displacement, dispossession and illegal sale by the officials, and an order compelling the Defendants to convene an Annual General Meeting and produce audited accounts. The Plaintiffs, members of the group ranch established in 1978, alleged that the current officials elected in 2015 had never convened an AGM, made arbitrary decisions on subdivision without member approval, failed to keep audited accounts, and engaged in displacement, double allocation and misallocation of title deeds. The 1st Defendant's Chairman opposed, contending that most of the ranch had already been subdivided and titles issued before and during their tenure, that no affected member had come forward, that an earlier suit (Kajiado High Court JR No. 1 of 2015) over the officials' election was decided in their favour and is pending appeal, and that handover of records by former officials was incomplete. Several plaintiffs (the 50th, 67th, 72nd, 77th, 78th, 80th and 82nd) swore affidavits denying consent to being sued, alleging forged fingerprints and confirming they had been allocated land. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles and Nguruman, the court held that no prima facie case was established - the alleged displaced members gave no affidavits, and title holders were not joined - so the remaining conditions fell away. Compelling an AGM was also refused pending the Court of Appeal matter and viva voce evidence on handover. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for temporary injunction over the Group Lands

Holding

No prima facie case was established; injunction refused

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found the Plaintiffs' averments unsupported: the named displaced members gave no affidavits, several plaintiffs denied consent to being sued and admitted allocation, affected title holders were not joined, and the area list predated the current officials. Injunctive relief being equitable, the court doubted which plaintiffs truly had a claim. Having failed the first Giella condition, the other two conditions fell away per Nguruman.

p. 2
02

Whether the court should compel the 1st Defendant to convene an Annual General Meeting

Holding

Refused; not appropriate at interlocutory stage

Reasoning

The election and mandate of the current officials is challenged in Kajiado High Court JR No. 1 of 2015, now pending in the Court of Appeal, and the previous office bearers allegedly failed to hand over documents. The court held these issues require viva voce evidence and await the pending appellate decision before an AGM can be scheduled.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • If a prima facie case is not established, irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no consideration in an injunction application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated the 27th June 2019 is dismissed.
  2. 2.Costs will be in the cause.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Control Act / applicable land statutesNot specified in judgment

Cases cited (4)

  • Giella Vs Cassman Brown Co. Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Mrao Ltd Vs First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others
    (2003) KLR 125
  • Suleiman V Amboseli Resort Ltd
    (2004) KLR 589
  • Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nelson & 2 others
    Civil Appeal No.21 of 2014 (UR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land parcel Kajiado/Mailua group lands (not expressly stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Imanke Ole Lekincha Lolojie & 105 others v Mailua Group Ranch & 2 others [2020] KEELC 2825 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 27th June 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2825/eng@2020-05-06

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