Kaitheri Housing Ivestment Company Limited v County Government of Kirinyaga [2022] KEELC 788 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner lost an urgent injunction because she pleaded money compensation as an alternative and offered no proof of the threatened demolition.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case
No - the applicant produced no evidence (photographs, gazette notice) to substantiate the alleged intention by the respondent to demolish houses or build high-rise buildings
Although certificates of search showed the applicant as registered proprietor, the alleged threat justifying the injunction - the respondent's intention to build a high-rise building - was unsupported by any documentary evidence. Applying the Mrao definition, the court found no apparent infringement of a right calling for explanation or rebuttal, hence no prima facie case.
Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages
No - the applicant's own amended plaint sought an alternative prayer for payment of current market price of the land parcels as compensation
The court examined the amended plaint and found that the applicant had itself pleaded an alternative remedy of compensation at current market price. By its own pleadings, the applicant admitted that damages were an adequate remedy, failing the second Giella criterion as elaborated in Nguruman Ltd.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must show a prima facie case with probability of success; irreparable injury not compensable by damages; and failing that the court decides on the balance of convenience
- The three Giella conditions are separate, distinct and sequential hurdles; a prima facie case alone does not permit leap-frogging to an injunction
- A party who seeks an alternative prayer for damages/compensation cannot claim irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages
- He who alleges must prove; allegations of intended demolition or construction must be supported by evidence such as photographs or gazette notices
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 16th August, 2021 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land parcels INOI/KERUGOYA/3151-3161
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kaitheri Housing Ivestment Company Limited v County Government of Kirinyaga [2022] KEELC 788 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 16th August, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/788/eng@2022-03-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.