Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in judgment· [2021] KEELC 1578 (KLR)

Sisters of the Apostolic Carmel Registered Trustees v Embakasi Ranching Company Limited & 3 others [2021] KEELC 1578 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 October 2021
BEB M Eboso
1,625 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Where both sides claim the same land and the court is unsure who is right, it may freeze all dealings and development for 12 months so the dispute is heard quickly.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, a religious congregation of sisters, sued the 1st defendant (a land-owning entity), the 2nd defendant (an individual allottee) and the 3rd defendant, claiming to be the absolute owner of four plots formerly designated V.3549, 3550, 3551 and 3552, now Nairobi Block 105/5327, 5330, 5342 and 5345, and seeking a permanent injunction, a declaration of ownership, transfer documents from the 1st defendant and cancellation of any leases issued to the 2nd defendant. Alongside the plaint it filed a notice of motion dated 21/9/2020 seeking interlocutory orders restraining any dealing with, alienation of, or interference with the suit plots. The 1st defendant swore, through its vice-chairman Walter Kigera Waireri, that the plaintiff was only ever allocated twenty plots, not the four claimed. The 2nd defendant asserted he bought the plots (P.4117, P4118, P4175 and P4176) from Edward Oloo and Grace Helidah Oganga in 2000 and 2010 and held certificates and titles. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown test, the court found doubts about the rival allegations and held the matter should be resolved on a balance of convenience, favouring preservation of the properties rather than an injunction in favour of either party. The court ordered that there be no dealings in, and no further development of, the four titles for twelve months, directed the plaintiff to prepare the suit for hearing within that period, and made costs in the cause. The ruling was delivered virtually from Thika by B M Eboso J on 12 October 2021.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff satisfied the Giella v Cassman Brown criteria for an interlocutory injunction

Holding

The plaintiff did not establish a clear prima facie case given doubts on rival allegations; the court resorted to the balance of convenience and ordered preservation rather than an injunction in favour of either party

Reasoning

The court restated the Giella criteria: prima facie case, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience if in doubt. Both parties advanced rival claims to the same four plots - the plaintiff claiming purchase and long possession since 2004, the 2nd defendant holding certificates and titles issued by the 1st defendant. Given the doubts, the court declined to grant a one-sided injunction and instead preserved the parcels for 12 months pending hearing.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the court is in doubt on rival allegations, an interlocutory application is determined on a balance of convenience with a view to preserving the suit property and fast-tracking the substantive dispute
  • At interlocutory stage the court does not make conclusive or definitive pronouncements on the key issues in the dispute

Court orders

#
  1. 1.No dealings in Title Numbers Nairobi Block 105/5327, Nairobi Block 105/5330, Nairobi Block 105/5342 and Nairobi Block 105/5345 for a period of twelve months
  2. 2.No further developments on the said parcels of land for a period of 12 months
  3. 3.The plaintiff to prepare the suit for hearing and determination within the said period of 12 months
  4. 4.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Company Limited
    (1973) EA 358
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (interlocutory injunction application in a land suit)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sisters of the Apostolic Carmel Registered Trustees v Embakasi Ranching Company Limited & 3 others [2021] KEELC 1578 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1578/eng@2021-10-12

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