Joseph Njiraini Muriithi v Beth Wanjira Muriithi, Agnes Wakuthii Wachira, Anthony Mbithi Wachira & Susan Njeri Munene; Margaret Wakiuru Murathi (Interested Party) ; Jane Kirunda Njiraini, BMN & SWN (Intended Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 521 of 2013) [2020] KEELC 3115 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court restored temporary protection of disputed land, ruling a tribunal's jurisdictional overreach and tree destruction justified an injunction despite an earlier refusal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
The applicant's claim that the Land Disputes Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and therefore its award cancelling his registration is null and void constitutes a prima facie case.
The applicant was previously the registered proprietor before the 1st and 2nd defendants procured the tribunal's award. The alleged award of land by the tribunal exceeded the jurisdiction donated under Section 3(2) of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act. The court held that a jurisdictional challenge need not await full trial; it meets the prima facie standard on its own.
Irreparable injury and balance of convenience
The applicant would suffer irreparable injury because destruction of trees planted in 2004 and digging of trenches damage the environment in a way not compensable by damages; balance of convenience tilts in his favour.
The 4th defendant's replying affidavit merely denied the allegations without controverting the photographic evidence of stumps, logs and heavy destruction. Since damages could not restore the environment the applicant had envisaged, and the respondents only entered the land on 26th November 2019, both the second and third Giella principles favoured the applicant.
Review of the court's earlier orders of 20th December 2012
The court invoked its power of review over its earlier order disallowing a similar injunction, holding that the new grounds justified revisiting the 20th December 2012 ruling.
Although a similar prayer for injunction had been disallowed in the application dated 21st October 2011, the court found that the fresh grounds advanced - particularly the jurisdictional challenge and new acts of destruction - called for the exercise of its review power. No appeal had been lodged against the 2012 decision, but the court nonetheless exercised review rather than treat the matter as res judicata.
Legal principles established
#- In an application for an injunction, a party seeking the court's discretion must establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and, where the court is in doubt, the balance of convenience (Giella v Cassman Brown principles).
- A challenge to the jurisdiction of a tribunal that cancelled a party's title is a prima facie issue the court cannot ignore.
- Destruction of trees and digging of trenches cause environmental damage beyond compensable injury to the applicant.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction issued against the 3rd and 4th defendants restraining them, their servants, agents and/or employees from digging trenches, constructing, felling trees or in any other means interfering with L.R. No. MUTIRA/KIRUNDA/1476 and L.R. No. MUTIRA/KIRUNDA/1481 pending the hearing and determination of this suit
- 2.Costs of the suit to be costs in the cause
- 3.Parties directed to take a hearing date and have the suit heard and determined within 3 months
- 4.Mention by consent on 18th March 2020 to take a convenient hearing date
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court to grant injunctions and review its own orders (application under Notice of Motion; specific enabling provision not cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph Njiraini Muriithi v Beth Wanjira Muriithi, Agnes Wakuthii Wachira, Anthony Mbithi Wachira & Susan Njeri Munene; Margaret Wakiuru Murathi (Interested Party) ; Jane Kirunda Njiraini, BMN & SWN (Intended Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 521 of 2013) [2020] KEELC 3115 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3115/eng@2020-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.