Black Trap Products Ltd v Mavoko Land Development Company Ltd & 3 others [2022] KEELC 1589 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner with documented title won temporary court protection stopping others from selling, occupying or issuing new titles over their Mlolongo property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with probability of success
Yes – the Plaintiff produced the letter of allotment, receipt of registration, grant and official search, while the 1st Defendant produced no evidence of revocation of the title or reallotment
The court weighed the documentary proof of ownership against the 1st Defendant's bare allegations that the title was revoked and the land resurveyed and given to squatters. The 1st Defendant disclaimed ownership and produced no records of the alleged squatter allotments. With ownership evidenced and revocation unproven, the Plaintiff showed an apparently infringed right calling for rebuttal.
Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted
Yes – the apprehension that the suit property would be sold and alienated had basis
The court applied the Pius Kipchirchir Kogo formulation that irreparable injury is one that cannot be adequately compensated in damages and for which no other remedy exists. Given the 1st Defendant's lack of candour about its role in the alleged allotments and the alleged onward disposal to third parties, the court found the apprehension of alienation credible and the injury irreparable.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It tilts in favour of the Plaintiff, who would suffer more injury if the injunction were declined than the 1st Defendant would if it were granted
The court noted it would consider balance of convenience if wrong on irreparable injury. Since the 1st Defendant disclaimed ownership and the Plaintiff is the evidenced proprietor facing deprivation, the greater injury fell on the Plaintiff if the property were alienated pending trial.
Whether prayers for removal of structures and a permanent injunction could be granted at the interlocutory stage
No – the mandatory injunction lacked proof of who erected the structures and when, and the permanent injunction must await trial
Relying on Kenya Breweries Ltd v Washington O. Okeya and Nation Media Group v John Harun Mwau, the court held mandatory injunctions issue at interlocutory stage only in special circumstances. The Plaintiff's affidavit did not show who put up or when the structures were erected. The permanent injunction prayer was premature before trial evidence.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience
- Mandatory injunctions can only be granted at the interlocutory stage in special circumstances
- A party alleging revocation or reallotment of a registered title bears the evidential burden of proving it; absence of such proof leaves an evidenced title prima facie established
Court orders
#- 1.Interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st Defendant/Respondent, its employees, servants, agents, purchasers, lessees, lessors and any person through whom it may act, from encroaching, entering, trespassing, seizing, possessing, remaining thereon, selling, offering for sale, transferring, leasing or alienating L.R. No. 11895/12 (Grant Number I.R 55345) pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.Restraint on the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents from issuing any certificate of title to the 1st Defendant or persons acting through it in respect of the suit property pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 3.Restraint on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants/Respondents and their employees, agents, servants, purchasers, lessees and lessors from doing anything with the suit property detrimental to the Plaintiff's interest pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 4.The OCPD Athi-River Police Station and OCS Mlolongo Police Station to assist in the enforcement of the Court Orders
- 5.Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 19(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act (inherent jurisdiction) and Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Black Trap Products Ltd v Mavoko Land Development Company Ltd & 3 others [2022] KEELC 1589 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment as supplied (ELC suit at Machakos; Notice of Motion dated 22nd September 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1589/eng@2022-02-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.