Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of motion dated 1st February, 2021, amended 26th March, 2021 (ELC suit, Nyahururu)· [2021] KEELC 1239 (KLR)

David Gachoki Njogu & 5 others v Sino Nydro Corporation Ltd & another [2021] KEELC 1239 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 September 2021
1,368 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Nyahururu dismissed landowners' bid to stop a sewer project on their land, finding no expert evidence placed it on private parcels.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs, registered proprietors of land parcels in Ol Kalou (LR Nyandarua/Olkalou Central/3403, 454, 6472, 5496, 5495, 5648 and 3321), moved the court by notice of motion dated 1st February 2021 and amended on 26th March 2021 under Section 63(c) & (e) of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from entering, using or interfering with the suit properties, on the basis that the Defendants were constructing a sewer line through their land without consent or compulsory acquisition. The 1st Defendant, which is constructing the Ol Kalou Town Sewage System, responded through its project manager Shan Xiaoyu that the works are on a riparian reserve demarcated by the Water Resources Authority, within which the Plaintiffs had encroached, and that the donor-funded project had strict timelines. The 2nd Defendant filed grounds of opposition asserting the project sits on riparian reserve and that the application was incompetent and an abuse of process. The court framed two issues: whether a temporary injunction and whether a mandatory injunction should issue. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court held the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a prima facie case since there was no surveyor or expert report placing the sewer line on their parcels, and planting trees and crops was not proof of ownership. They also failed to demonstrate irreparable damage not compensable by damages, per Nguruman. A mandatory injunction at the interim stage was held to be unavailable absent a very strong, clear and exceptional case. The application was dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case with a probability of success

Holding

No prima facie case established; no surveyor or expert report placed the sewer line on the Plaintiffs' parcels

Reasoning

The court accepted the Plaintiffs' registration as proprietors of the suit parcels but noted the real dispute was whether the sewer project ran through private land or the riparian reserve claimed by the Defendants. The court, without deciding conclusively, found no expert or surveyor evidence locating the sewer line relative to the parcels, and held planting trees and crops did not prove ownership. The first Giella principle therefore failed.

p. 2
02

Whether the Plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable damage

Holding

No irreparable damage demonstrated; any loss is quantifiable in damages

Reasoning

Applying the Nguruman formulation of irreparable injury, the court held the Plaintiffs failed to show the nature and extent of any irreparable loss, that the loss could not be quantified in monetary terms, or that damages would be inadequate. It was not contended that the Defendants were impecunious or unable to meet an award of damages, so the second Giella principle also failed.

p. 2
03

Whether a mandatory injunction could issue at the interlocutory stage

Holding

No; mandatory injunctions at interim stage require a very strong, clear and exceptional case

Reasoning

The court held that having failed the first two principles, the Plaintiffs were not entitled to the interim injunction, and in any event a mandatory injunction ordering removal of structures and restoration is a major relief reserved for clear and exceptional cases with a high probability of success, and must await trial.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage is granted only in very clear and exceptional cases where the applicant has a very strong case with a high probability of success at trial.
  • Planting trees and crops on contested land is not necessarily evidence of private ownership; expert survey evidence is required to locate a works project in relation to registered parcels.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiffs' notice of motion dated 1st February, 2021 and amended on 26th March, 2021 is dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21)Section 63(c) & (e)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 42
  • Water Act
  • Environmental Management and Coordination Act

Cases cited (2)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd
    [1973] EA 358
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 63(c) & (e) of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Gachoki Njogu & 5 others v Sino Nydro Corporation Ltd & another [2021] KEELC 1239 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of motion dated 1st February, 2021, amended 26th March, 2021 (ELC suit, Nyahururu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1239/eng@2021-09-30

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