Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedPetition (Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2020) - not stated in judgment· [2021] KEELC 3600 (KLR)

Emirates Group Limited v Nairobi City County & 3 others [2021] KEELC 3600 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 April 2021
LKL. KOMINGOI
536 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court protected a registered landowner from eviction and demolition, ruling that vague official objections without evidence cannot defeat ownership.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (L. Komingoi, J) disposed of a Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2020 filed in support of a petition. The motion, anchored on Articles 19, 20, 22, 23, 35, 40, 47, 50, 64 and 159 of the Constitution, rules 20 and 21 of the 2006 Practice and Procedure Rules, and the Land Act and Land Registration Act (both No. 3 and 6 of 2012), sought an interim injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from trespassing on, dealing with, demolishing structures on, forcibly entering or evicting the petitioner from parcel LR No 209/12223, IR No. 67132, along Haile Selassie Avenue, Nairobi, pending the hearing and determination of the petition. The application was supported by the affidavit of Anish Doshi, a director of the petitioner, and was served as evidenced by an affidavit of service by Kelvin Roy Omondi. The 1st respondent filed grounds of opposition and a replying affidavit by Eric Odhiambo Abwao, Assistant Director, Legal Department, asserting only that the demolished perimeter wall did not fulfil development permission conditions, without particulars. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents filed nothing despite service. The court found the petitioner's registered ownership undisputed and no serious opposition, granted prayer (3), and ordered costs to abide the outcome of the petition. Judgment was delivered in Nairobi on 22nd April 2021.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an interim injunction should issue restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from interfering with the petitioner's suit property pending determination of the petition

Holding

The application was granted as there was no serious opposition and the only rebuttal (breach of development permission conditions) was unsupported by particulars

Reasoning

The petitioner was the undisputed registered proprietor of the suit property and alleged unlawful demolition of the perimeter wall by the 1st and 2nd respondents. The 1st respondent's assertion that the wall did not fulfil development permission conditions carried no particulars, and the 2nd respondent filed no response. Interlocutory orders previously granted on 28th January 2021 were therefore continued by allowing prayer (3).

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a respondent asserting that a development breached permission conditions provides no particulars, and files no serious opposition, an interlocutory injunction protecting the registered proprietor's possession may issue

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Prayer (3) of the Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2020 granted - restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents by themselves, agents or otherwise from trespassing upon, dealing with, demolishing structures on, forcibly entering, evicting the petitioner from, or otherwise interfering with the petitioner's possession and usage of parcel LR No 209/12223, IR No. 67132, situated along Haile Selassie Avenue, Nairobi, pending the hearing and determination of the petition
  2. 2.Costs to abide the outcome of the Petition

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 19, 20, 22, 23, 35, 40, 47, 50, 64, 159
  • Constitution of Kenya (supervisory jurisdiction and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual) High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2006Rules 20, 21
  • Land ActNo 6 of 2012 (general)
  • Land Registration ActNo 3 of 2012 (general)
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 19, 20, 22, 23, 35, 40, 47, 50, 64 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; rules 20 and 21 of the Constitution of Kenya (supervisory jurisdiction and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual) High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2006; Land Act No 6 of 2012; Land Registration Act No 3 of 2012

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Emirates Group Limited v Nairobi City County & 3 others [2021] KEELC 3600 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition (Notice of Motion dated 9th December 2020) - not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3600/eng@2021-04-22

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