Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2021] KEELC 3669 (KLR)

Joel Raduma Ramogo & another v Integrity Holdings Limited [2021] KEELC 3669 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 April 2021
LGL. GACHERU
2,223 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court stopped a neighbour's building work because it damaged adjacent property and exceeded approved plans, protecting the neighbouring owners.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Thika (L. Gacheru J) on a Notice of Motion dated 20th November 2019 by the Plaintiffs, registered owners of L.R Dagoretti/Kinoo/6181, seeking an injunction restraining the Defendant, owner of the adjacent L.R Dagoretti/Kinoo/5214, from continuing construction works alleged to block light, cause water leaks, cracks and flooding to their 32-flat development, and to compel the OCS Kinoo Police Station to enforce the orders. The Defendant opposed, asserting he had County Government of Kiambu approvals and that the application was overtaken by events as the building was complete. The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown test as restated in Nguruman Limited. It rejected the 'overtaken by events' argument for want of evidence. It found a prima facie case, noting text messages and photographs showing interference with the Plaintiffs' property and the Defendant's acknowledgment of minimal damage. On irreparable loss, the court observed that the approved architectural plans provided for five floors whereas the building had seven, and no other approvals were produced; these allegations were unrebutted. The balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo, defined as the state of the Defendant's building at the date of the ruling. The application was allowed entirely in terms of prayers 3 and 5. The ruling was delivered virtually under COVID-19 directions, with Mr Kimani appearing for the Defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie case

Holding

A prima facie case was established because the Defendant's construction interfered with the Plaintiffs' quiet and peaceful use and possession of their property, evidencing an apparently infringed right

Reasoning

The Plaintiffs are registered owners of Dagoretti/Kinoo/6181. Text messages and photographs showed the Defendant's construction interfered with their building, causing blockage of light, cracks, slippage and flooding. The Defendant acknowledged minimal damages. That demonstrated an apparently infringed right calling for rebuttal, sufficient at the interlocutory stage.

p. 2
02

Irreparable loss

Holding

Irreparable loss was demonstrated because further construction without approvals and beyond the approved five floors risks harm not compensable in damages

Reasoning

The approved architectural plans provided for five floors but the building had seven; no other approvals were produced and the allegations were unrebutted. Unapproved construction causing structural damage to adjacent premises may cause harm damages cannot adequately compensate, warranting an injunction.

p. 3
03

Balance of convenience

Holding

The court was not in doubt, but even so the balance of convenience tilts in favour of maintaining the status quo

Reasoning

Having found no doubt on the first two limbs, the court nonetheless held that the balance of convenience always favours maintaining the status quo, defining status quo as the condition of the Defendant's building at the time of the ruling.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The three Giella v Cassman Brown requirements are sequential hurdles an applicant must surmount
  • Interference with the right to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of property constitutes an infringement of constitutional rights
  • An application cannot be dismissed as overtaken by events without evidence supporting that assertion

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 20th November 2019 is allowed entirely in terms of prayers no. 3 and 5 of the said Application
  2. 2.The status quo to be maintained being the condition the Defendant/Respondent's building was in at the time of the Ruling

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 rule 1

Cases cited (5)

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
  • Nguruman Limited vs Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others
    CA No.77 of 2012 (2014) eKLR
  • Mrao Ltd vs First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others
    (2003) KLR 125
  • Paul Gitonga Wanjau vs Gathuthi Tea Factory Co. Ltd & 2 Others
    Nyeri HCC No.28 of 2015
  • Niaz Mohammed Janmohammed vs Commissioner for Lands & 4 Others
    (1996) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction over land disputes (interlocutory application in a pending suit); no specific constitutional or statutory provision invoked in the ruling

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joel Raduma Ramogo & another v Integrity Holdings Limited [2021] KEELC 3669 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3669/eng@2021-04-15

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