Josephine Kagiri M’turuchiu v M’Mwirichia M’Iguatu &Cecerina; Karoki M’Iguatu (Sued as the legal representatives of the estate of M’Iguatu M’Itania) [2021] KEELC 3661 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A buyer who occupied and developed land she purchased won court protection blocking any sale or transfer of the disputed Meru plot, but only for one year.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case warranting an interlocutory injunction
Yes - the applicant produced a sale agreement, has been in possession and developed the land, and the 2nd defendant's affidavit admits her occupation; pertinent issues arise for trial.
Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the court found the applicant's sale agreement, long possession and development of the land, coupled with the 2nd defendant's admission of occupation, raised a genuine and arguable case. The injunction was needed to maintain the status quo pending determination of the suit.
Whether an order of inhibition should issue over the suit land
Yes - the lower risk of injustice favours the plaintiff, who is in occupation, and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant.
Relying on Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act and Dorcas Muthoni v Michael Ireri Ngari, the court held that inhibition, like an interlocutory injunction, preserves disputed property pending trial. Since the plaintiff occupies part of the land, the course carrying the lower risk of injustice favoured granting the inhibition.
Legal principles established
#- The purpose of a temporary injunction is to conserve the suit property pending determination of the dispute.
- An order of inhibition, like an interlocutory injunction, preserves disputed property pending trial and requires good grounds.
- The court should take the course that carries the lower risk of injustice.
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 11/01/2021 allowed, with the injunctive orders to remain in force for a period of one year only
- 2.Inhibition order in respect of land parcel KIIRUA/NAARI-MAITEI/505
- 3.Injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents from any dealings appertaining to the suit land until the suit is heard and determined (limited to one year)
- 4.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(c) and (e) of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21); Order 40 rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 68 of the Land Registration Act 2012; Section 13(1) and (7) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Josephine Kagiri M’turuchiu v M’Mwirichia M’Iguatu &Cecerina; Karoki M’Iguatu (Sued as the legal representatives of the estate of M’Iguatu M’Itania) [2021] KEELC 3661 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the extract (notice of motion dated 11/01/2021 within a pending suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3661/eng@2021-04-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.