Syokimau Residents Association v Brisk International Limited & 2 others; National Land Commission (Interested party) [2021] KEELC 2977 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped construction because the developer could not show approved building plans, showing residents can win injunctions on missing county permits alone.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established for the temporary injunction
A prima facie case was established to the extent that the 1st Defendant was developing the suit property without the requisite approval of the County Government of Machakos, evidenced by the uncomplied-with enforcement notice and absence of approved building plans
The 1st Defendant did not deny being served with an enforcement notice dated 3rd February 2020 requiring it to restore the suit property. Although it deponed that it paid the requisite fees, the approved building plans were never placed before the court. Under Section 72 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, development without permission justifies an enforcement notice. The absence of approved plans demonstrated development without permission.
Whether the court should determine whether the suit property is public land at the interlocutory stage
The court declined to determine the public land issue because the Plaintiff's Plaint did not challenge the 1st Defendant's title, having instead prayed for injunctive relief pending determination of the title's legality by the National Land Commission
The Plaintiff's own Plaint contemplated that the legality of the 1st Defendant's title would be determined by the National Land Commission. The court therefore confined itself to the development-permission question, leaving the public land question to the Commission or to the court if called upon after amendment of pleadings.
Legal principles established
#- Development undertaken without the requisite development permission from the county government establishes a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction
Court orders
#- 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, the 1st Defendant, its agents, servants and or representatives restrained from construction works on Land Reference Numbers 13323/117, 118, 119 and 120 (Originally L.R. No. 12715/267)
- 2.The issue of the propriety of the titles of Land Reference Numbers 13323/117, 118, 119 and 120 (Originally L.R. No. 12715/267) to be determined by the National Land Commission, or by this court, upon amendment of the pleadings
- 3.Parties at liberty to apply
- 4.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land and environment disputes
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Syokimau Residents Association v Brisk International Limited & 2 others; National Land Commission (Interested party) [2021] KEELC 2977 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2977/eng@2021-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.