Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowed· [2020] KEELC 3266 (KLR)

Skan Commission Agencies Ltd v Mukuyu-Ini Farmers Co Ltd & 2 others [2020] KEELC 3266 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 February 2020
214 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling by Mohammed Kullow, Judge, of the Environment and Land Court at Narok, delivered on 10th February 2020 in a petition concerning land parcels Cis Mara/Olololunga/157 and 198. The petitioners moved the court by notice of motion dated 17th October 2018, supported by submissions, seeking among other things a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their members' possession of the suit parcels, production of documents by the land registrar, and a visit to the suit land. The court held that the issues in contest could only be determined at a full hearing where witnesses are called and evidence on the transaction preceding the suit is conclusively canvassed. However, to protect the integrity of the proceedings and preserve the suit land, it issued a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' members' possession of the two parcels pending the hearing and determination of the petition. The remaining prayers were found premature at the interlocutory stage; the petitioners were directed to make appropriate applications during the hearing of the substantive suit. The costs of the application were ordered to be in the cause. The outcome is partially allowed: the injunction prayer succeeded, the other prayers were deferred, and no costs award was made against either party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a temporary injunction should issue pending determination of the petition

Holding

Yes - a temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' members' possession of the suit parcels pending the hearing and determination of the petition

Reasoning

The court found that the contested issues could only be conclusively determined at a full hearing with witnesses and evidence on the transaction preceding the suit. To protect the integrity of the proceedings and preserve the suit land, it issued a temporary injunction maintaining possession rather than determining the substantive issues interlocutorily.

p. 1
02

Whether documents could be compelled from the land registrar and a site visit ordered at the interlocutory stage

Holding

No - those prayers were premature and deferred to the hearing of the substantive suit

Reasoning

The court held that the remaining prayers related to production of documents by the land registrar and a visit to the suit land, which were premature at the interlocutory stage. It directed the petitioners to make appropriate applications during the hearing of the substantive suit rather than granting them on the motion.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Interlocutory applications raising contested issues that require conclusive evidence at a full hearing may be dealt with by preserving the status quo through a temporary injunction rather than deciding the substantive issues at that stage.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' members' possession of land parcel Cis Mara/Olololunga/157 and 198 pending the hearing and determination of the petition
  2. 2.Leave granted to the petitioners to make the appropriate applications for production of documents by the land registrar and a visit to the suit land at the hearing of the substantive suit
  3. 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Original petition jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (the judgment does not expressly cite the provision)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Skan Commission Agencies Ltd v Mukuyu-Ini Farmers Co Ltd & 2 others [2020] KEELC 3266 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3266/eng@2020-02-10

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