Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the extract (Notice of Motion dated 30th July, 2020 in the pending suit)· [2021] KEELC 4202 (KLR)

Local Authorities Provident Fund (Lapfund) v Emily Katito Kasirimo & 4 others [2021] KEELC 4202 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 February 2021
1,824 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, personal representatives of the late Daniel Kasirimo Ole Muyaa, moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 30th July, 2020 seeking to discharge, vary or set aside the Ruling and orders of 18th July, 2017 (which had granted the Plaintiff a temporary injunction over Kajiado/Kaputiei North/52489), and in their place sought a temporary injunction against the Plaintiff in respect of Kajiado/Kaputiei North/1020 and five resultant subdivisions, plus maintenance of status quo. They contended the 2017 orders were crafted in final terms, that the estate owns the parcels, that the sale was never completed, and that the Plaintiff's agents, supervised by the OCS Isinya, had begun fencing the land. The Plaintiff filed no replying affidavit. The court framed two issues: whether the 2017 orders should be set aside, and whether an interlocutory injunction should issue. On review, the court applied Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 rule 1 and Muyodi v ICDC, holding the applicants failed to explain a delay of almost three years, to show discovery of new and important matter, or to demonstrate error apparent on the face of the record; the deceased had admitted receipt of part of the purchase price. On injunction, following Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman, the court found no prima facie case since the Plaintiff holds title to 52489 and parcel 1020 no longer exists, and declined to consider the other conditions. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the orders of 18th July, 2017 should be discharged, varied or set aside on review

Holding

The application for review fails; the threshold under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 CPR was not met.

Reasoning

The orders were issued on 18th July 2017 with the deceased's full awareness and participation; he neither appealed nor sought review. The applicants sought review almost three years later without explaining the delay, without showing discovery of new and important matter, and without demonstrating any error apparent on the face of the record. The deceased had admitted receipt of part of the purchase price from the 5th Defendant in his replying affidavit.

p. 2
02

Whether an interlocutory injunction should issue against the Plaintiff

Holding

No injunction; the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case, the first Giella condition.

Reasoning

It is not disputed that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of Kajiado/Kaputiei North/52489, having been sold the parcel by the 4th Defendant, and that parcel 1020 has been subdivided and no longer exists. The defendants did not show the subdivisions still form part of the deceased's estate. Having failed on the first Giella condition, the court, following Nguruman, declined to consider irreparable injury and balance of convenience.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for review must satisfy the grounds in Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, be made without unreasonable delay, and unexplained delay of almost three years is fatal.
  • Where a prima facie case is not established, the remaining Giella conditions (irreparable injury and balance of convenience) need not be considered.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 30th July, 2020 is dismissed.
  2. 2.Costs will be in the cause.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45, rule 1(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • National Bank of Kenya Vs Ndungu Njau
    Civil Appeal No. 211 of 1996
  • Mary Nkolia & 2 Others Vs Allan Musanka Togom
    Narok ELC Case No. 19 of 2019
  • Muyodi v Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation and Another
    EALR (2006) EA 243
  • Giella Vs Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Mugah Vs Kunga
    (1988) KLR 748
  • Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nelson & 2 others
    Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2014 (UR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review of the court's own orders), within the court's original jurisdiction over the pending suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Local Authorities Provident Fund (Lapfund) v Emily Katito Kasirimo & 4 others [2021] KEELC 4202 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the extract (Notice of Motion dated 30th July, 2020 in the pending suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4202/eng@2021-02-24

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