Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2021] KEELC 4392 (KLR)

Mkamenyi Farmers Cooperative Society Limited v Ministry of Lands & Physical Planning & 9 others [2021] KEELC 4392 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
3 February 2021
MSMUNYAO SILA
2,228 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 refused to stop eviction-related interference because the co-op had no documents proving its members owned or occupied the land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, a co-operative society of over 3,000 members of Mkamenyi Village in Taita Taveta County, sued claiming that the suit land (LR No. 28683, 1953 hectares) was originally held by a settler, Major Lezen, on a 99-year lease from 1920, which was surrendered to the Government in the 1980s, whereupon the land became public land wrongly allocated to Voi Sisal Estates Limited instead of being settled on the plaintiff's members. It sought declarations that the grants of lease to the 6th, 7th and 8th defendants were null and void, rectification of the register, a permanent injunction against subdivision, and costs. Together with the plaint it filed a notice of application dated 11 October 2019 seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the 6th, 7th and 8th defendants from harassing its members or interfering with their occupation of the suit property. The 8th defendant, Voi Point Limited, opposed, asserting it was a bona fide purchaser for value, that the plaintiff's history of the land was false, that only 28 families (the Mkamenyi Squatters Committee) were recognised squatters, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over historical injustices. The 9th defendant bank similarly asserted the land was private and the 8th defendant a bona fide purchaser. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, the court found the plaintiff's historical narrative completely unsupported: no evidence of Major Lezen's ownership or lease, no evidence of the claimed surrender, no registered interest by the plaintiff, and no tangible evidence of occupation by its members; the Chief's letter confirmed only 28 squatter families. The application was dismissed with costs, the plaintiff to prove its case at trial without the benefit of any injunction.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for interlocutory injunction

Holding

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success; its historical claims of ownership, illegal transfer and public land allocation were unsupported by evidence

Reasoning

The court examined the documents and found no evidence that the suit land was ever owned by Major Lezen or held on a 99-year lease from 1920. The title exhibited showed Voi Sisal Estates Limited as first grantee pursuant to a surrender the court had not seen. There was no evidence connecting the plaintiff or its members to the land, no registered interest, and no tangible evidence of occupation; the Chief's letter confirmed only 28 squatter families, not members of the plaintiff.

p. 3
02

Whether the land was public land wrongly allocated to the defendants' predecessors

Holding

No evidence was presented of any breach of the lease terms or that the land was public land wrongly granted to the defendants' predecessors

Reasoning

The plaintiff asserted that the lease was surrendered in the 1980s and the land became public land wrongly allocated to Voi Sisal Estates Limited. The court found nothing in the documents presented to support the alleged breaches of the lease or the claim of public land; the assertion appeared completely unsupported and could only be tested at trial if at all.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success and irreparable loss not compensable by damages; where the court is in doubt, the balance of convenience applies

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's application dated 11 October 2019 for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Co-Operative Societies Act, Cap 490

Cases cited (1)

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mkamenyi Farmers Cooperative Society Limited v Ministry of Lands & Physical Planning & 9 others [2021] KEELC 4392 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4392/eng@2021-02-03

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