Fredrick Gitonga Rinkanya & another v Raymond Karani & 6 others; Directorate of Criminal Investigation (Interested Party) [2021] KEELC 4100 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court blocked the sale of contested Ngong land and froze the title register until ownership is decided, protecting the original 1992 owners.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for temporary injunction
Yes - Plaintiffs were registered proprietors in 1992; the Green Card showed irregular subsequent transfers they denied, and the Defendants' averments were uncontroverted.
The Plaintiffs produced the Green Card and Certificate of Title showing registration on 19th June 1992 and subsequent entries (Nos. 6, 8 and 10) effecting transfers to the 3rd Defendant and then the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The Plaintiffs denied ever transferring the land and alleged fraud. The Defendants, though served, filed no response, leaving the averments uncontroverted. Relying on Giella and Mrao, the court found an apparent right infringed warranting the orders sought.
Whether the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages
Yes - disposal of the suit land to third parties before determination of ownership would cause grave and irreparable injury.
The court applied Nguruman, holding that the injury must be actual, substantial and demonstrable and incapable of adequate monetary compensation. Since the 1st and 2nd Defendants were showing the land to prospective buyers, a sale before determination would defeat the suit; the injury was not speculative.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It tilts in favour of the Plaintiffs because the land would be wasted away if not preserved.
The court reasoned that preservation of the suit property pending determination was necessary, otherwise the land would be disposed of and the substratum of the suit destroyed.
Whether an inhibition order should issue over the suit land
Yes - an inhibition should be registered under Order 40 CPR and section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act to preserve the suit land.
Having found the substratum of the suit should be preserved, the court relied on Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act, and associated itself with Dorcas Muthoni & 2 others v Michael Ireri Ngari, where an inhibition was granted to preserve suit land.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case is one in which, on the materials presented, the court concludes there is an apparent right infringed by the opposite party calling for explanation or rebuttal (Mrao Ltd v First American Bank).
- Irreparable injury must be actual, substantial and demonstrable and not adequately compensable by damages (Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen).
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction granted in respect of land parcel NGONG/NGONG/9140 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.The Land Registrar, Kajiado North to register an inhibition order against land parcel NGONG/NGONG/9140 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land parcel NGONG/NGONG/9140; relief sought under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Fredrick Gitonga Rinkanya & another v Raymond Karani & 6 others; Directorate of Criminal Investigation (Interested Party) [2021] KEELC 4100 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4100/eng@2021-03-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.