Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Case (Machakos) - Notice of Motion dated 25th November, 2019· [2022] KEELC 958 (KLR)

Skeeter Kwamboka v Water Resources Management Authority; Oasis Park Self-Help Group suing through John Mutinda & another (Interested Parties) [2022] KEELC 958 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 March 2022
2,158 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

#

The Environment and Land Court refused to stop the demolition of Syokimau maisonettes because the owner could not prove her case had a real chance of success.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on the Plaintiff Skeeter Kwamboka's Notice of Motion dated 25th November 2019 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from trespassing on, demolishing or interfering with her maisonettes on LR. 12715/254/026 Syokimau, which she said had been earmarked for demolition on 4th November 2019 for allegedly obstructing the Sabaki water course. The 1st Interested Party, Syokimau Residents' Association, opposed the application as res judicata, pointing to Machakos ELC Case No. 57 of 2017 (Nairobi ELC 1037 of 2015) involving the same subject matter, which was dismissed, and to prior orders in Petition No. 149 of 2012. The 2nd Interested Party, Oasis Park Self-Help Group, averred that the Plaintiff's construction blocked the natural channel causing flooding, that she produced no approvals from NEMA, WARMA, the County Physical Planner or the National Construction Authority, and that she had been served stop notices in 2015 and 2017. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, and adopting the Nguruman sequential approach, the court found the Plaintiff's own earlier affidavits contradicted her denial of notice and that she had furnished no approvals. She failed the prima facie case threshold, so the other limbs were not considered. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success for a temporary injunction

Holding

She did not. It is undisputed she is the registered proprietor, but past pleadings show she admitted receiving a demolition notice and having attempted a trench for the water channel, and she produced no approvals despite claiming to hold them.

Reasoning

The court compared her current denial of notice with her own affidavit in Nairobi ELC 1037 of 2015 where she admitted being issued a notice and having dug a trench for the water course. Her claim of having all requisite approvals was unsupported by any document annexed. Against the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the pleadings of the Defendant and Interested Parties were not baseless, so the threshold limb failed and the court declined to assess the other Giella limbs.

p. 3
02

Res judicata arising from Machakos ELC Case No. 57 of 2017

Holding

The court declined to decide res judicata at the interlocutory stage, noting the previous suit was dismissed on the Plaintiff's failure to extract and serve Summons to Enter Appearance.

Reasoning

The 1st Interested Party and the 2nd Interested Party argued the suit was res judicata, the previous suit having involved an identical injunction application against the same Defendant and having been dismissed. The judge expressly avoided determining that question at this stage, confining the decision to the prima facie case limb while noting the matter had previously been litigated.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an applicant fails to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, the court need not consider the other Giella-Cassman Brown limbs of irreparable harm and balance of convenience

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 25th November, 2019 is disallowed/dismissed as unmerited
  2. 2.Costs to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya (implied via right to clean and healthy environment claim)Article 42 (as argued by 2nd Interested Party)

Cases cited (8)

  • Giella Vs Cassman Brown
    (1973) E.A 358
  • Mrao Ltd Vs First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others
    (2003) 1KLR 125
  • J M Gichanga Vs Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited
    (2005) eKLR
  • Pius Kogo V Frank Kimeli Tenei
    (2018) eKLR
  • Cyanamid Co. Vs Ethicon Limited
    (1975) All ER 504
  • Exclusive Estates Ltd Vs Kenya Posts & Telecommunications Corporation & Another
    Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2004
  • Nguruman Limited Vs Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    (2014) eKLR; CA No. 77 of 2012
  • Mohammed Dado Hatu V Dhadho Gaddae Godhana & 2 Others
    (2017) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court original civil jurisdiction over land disputes and applications for interlocutory injunctions

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Skeeter Kwamboka v Water Resources Management Authority; Oasis Park Self-Help Group suing through John Mutinda & another (Interested Parties) [2022] KEELC 958 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC Case (Machakos) - Notice of Motion dated 25th November, 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/958/eng@2022-03-08

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