Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission v Willesden Investment Limited & 6 others; City Council of Nairobi (Interested Party) [2021] KEELC 3445 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court froze a contested Nairobi property but refused to block payment of a judgment debt already upheld by higher courts.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for injunction over the suit property
A prima facie case with probability of success was established
The Applicant alleged that the suit property, formerly part of Kaunda Street (now Cardinal Otunga Street), was created by fraudulently reducing the road width from 80 feet to 37.76 feet, and that the allottee Centre Park Limited did not exist in the Companies Registry or Registrar of Societies. Since the court cannot make final findings on affidavit evidence, these matters require a full trial. On the materials, the Respondents were properly called upon to explain, satisfying the prima facie case threshold.
Irreparable harm and balance of convenience
Balance of convenience tilts towards protecting public interest
Applying Joseph Ntombura v Godfrey Simiyu, the test is whether the applicant, not the respondent, will suffer irreparable harm. Applying Michael Osundwa Sakwa, there is public interest that harm not be caused to the nation or public. Given the traffic gridlock caused by narrow roads in the CBD, public interest outweighs private interests, and even with doubts the balance of convenience favours protecting the public.
Jurisdiction to grant relief declined by higher courts
The court lacked jurisdiction to grant prayers 4 and 5 as stay had been declined by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court
The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court had declined stay of execution of the decree in HCCC No. 367 of 2000. For this court to grant an injunction restraining payment of the decretal sum would amount to granting what higher courts refused, disrespecting the hierarchy of courts. The court therefore confined itself to prayer 3, the injunction over the suit property itself.
Legal principles established
#- The irreparable-harm test for injunctions is assessed from the applicant's perspective
- Public interest demands that private interests yield where they conflict with public interest
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents or any other person from wasting, damaging, alienating or in any other way further alienating or interfering with LR No. 209/12748, IR No. 66986 in Nairobi pending the hearing of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application provided for (prayer 7 allowed)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent civil jurisdiction of the High Court over the suit and interlocutory injunction application (Chamber Summons dated 3rd February 2010)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission v Willesden Investment Limited & 6 others; City Council of Nairobi (Interested Party) [2021] KEELC 3445 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Chamber Summons dated 3rd February 2010 (suit reinstated per Civil Appeal No. 325 of 2010). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3445/eng@2021-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.