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· [2021] KEELC 1415 (KLR)

Kitambala Marcellin & another v Kapiti Dairies Limited [2021] KEELC 1415 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 October 2021
2,762 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed East African University's injunction over a disputed boundary, struck out nothing, and sent the trusteeship question to the High Court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Environment and Land Court judgment at Machakos determined two interlocutory applications and a preliminary objection arising from a boundary dispute between the Plaintiffs, representing the East African University as registered proprietor of land parcel KJD/KAPUTIE-NORTH/5489, and the Defendant, registered proprietor of the adjacent parcel Kajiado/Kaputiei North/104459. The Plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction, alleging that the Defendant encroached on the suit land in 2018, pulled down a boundary fence and claimed a portion of the land, contrary to a boundary inspection by the County Land Surveyor confirming no increase of the Defendant's land. The Defendant opposed, contending that the Plaintiffs fenced 114 acres instead of 100, that the dispute had been referred to the Land Registrar under Section 18 of the Land Registration Act, and that the Plaintiffs lacked authority from the university's trustees. The court declined to strike out the suit, holding that although boundary disputes must first go to the Land Registrar, the Plaint raised trespass, ownership, injunction and compensation claims within the jurisdiction conferred by Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. The absence of a trustees' authority was treated as a curable procedural technicality under Article 159(2)(d), while the question of the trust's composition was referred to the High Court. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, Mrao and Nguruman, the court found a prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience in the Plaintiffs' favour and allowed their injunction application. The Defendant's application and preliminary objection were disallowed, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiffs' suit should be struck out as an abuse of process

Holding

Suit not struck out; the Plaint raises issues within ELC jurisdiction and failure to file a trustees' authority is curable procedurally

Reasoning

Although the court concurred that boundary disputes must first go to the Land Registrar under Section 18 of the Land Registration Act, the Plaint also raises trespass, ownership declaration, injunction and compensation claims, which fall under Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. The absence of a trustees' authority is a procedural technicality curable before hearing, guided by Article 159(2)(d) and the oxygen principles, and striking out should be sparingly exercised.

p. 2
02

Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for temporary injunction

Holding

Yes; a prima facie case with probability of success was demonstrated

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the court noted that the Defendant did not deny that the university owns the suit land, nor did it controvert the averments that it destroyed the fence. The Land Registrar's Report showed an apparent infringement of the Plaintiffs' rights, warranting the grant of an injunction.

p. 3
03

Irreparable harm and balance of convenience

Holding

Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages and balance of convenience favours them

Reasoning

Referring to Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court found the Plaintiffs' injuries demonstrable and not speculative, particularly since the Defendant did not deny destroying the fence. On the materials presented, the balance of convenience tilted in favour of the Plaintiffs as representatives of the owner of the suit land.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Striking out of pleadings is a power to be exercised sparingly and only in the clearest of cases
  • Justice is administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities under Article 159(2)(d)
  • Boundary disputes must first be determined by the Land Registrar under Section 18 of the Land Registration Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion application dated 11th June 2018 allowed
  2. 2.Defendant's Notice of Motion application dated 30th August 2018 disallowed
  3. 3.Defendant's Preliminary Objection dated 28th July 2018 disallowed
  4. 4.Costs in the cause
  5. 5.Parties directed to institute proceedings in the High Court to determine the trusteeship of the East African University

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSection 18
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13
  • Land ActSection 150
  • Registration of Documents ActSections 22, 23, 26
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 2 Rule 15(1)(d)
  • Civil Procedure ActNot specified (oxygen principles)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (23)

  • Palace Investments Limited V Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda & Another
    (2015) eKLR
  • Gujral Sandeep Singh Ragbir V Minister for Public Works, Road and Transport County Government of Kajiado & Another
    (2018) eKLR
  • Elishaphan Omollo Nyasita V John Ojowi Onuko
    (2019) eKLR
  • Giella V Cassman Brown & Co Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Mrao Ltd First American Bank of Kenya & 2 Others
    (2003) KLR 125
  • Moses C Muhia Njoroge V Jane W. Lesaloi & 5 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Pius Kipchirchir Kogo V Frank Kimeli Tenai
    (2018) eKLR
  • Ali Kitsao Katana V Kassim Mohammed Omar & 5 Others
    (2018) eKLR
  • George Karanu Ndeithi & Another V Eddy Peter Ndungu Kimemia & 3 Others
    (2020) eKLR
  • JKN v HWN
    (2015) eKLR
  • Leo Investments and Republic V Registrar General
    (2014) eKLR
  • Philomena Ndanga Karanja & 2 Others V Edward Kamau Maina
    (2015) eKLR
  • Affordable Homes Africa Limited V Ian Henderson & 2 Others
    HCCC No. 524 of 2004
  • Thome Farmers Company No. 4 Ltd V Farm of Faith Investors Ltd
    (2019) eKLR
  • Kenya Airways Ltd V Classical Travel and Tours Ltd
    (2003) eKLR
  • Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian 'S' Vs Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd
    (1989) KLR 1
  • Samson Aliton Okello V Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
    (2009) eKLR
  • Ooko V Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd
    (2002) eKLR
  • Sammy Japheth Kavuku V Equity Bank Ltd & Another
    (2014) eKLR
  • Republic Vs. District Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu & Anor
    (2014) eKLR
  • RAMJI MEGJI GUDKA LTD Vs ALFRED MORFAT OMUNDI MICHIRA & 2 OTHERS
    [2005] eKLR
  • DT DOBIE & COMPANY (KENYA) LTD. V. MUCHINA
    [1982] KLR 1
  • Nguruman Ltd. Vs. Jan Bonde Nielsen
    CA No. 77 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kitambala Marcellin & another v Kapiti Dairies Limited [2021] KEELC 1415 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1415/eng@2021-10-18

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