Orbit Chemical Industries Ltd v Nairobi City County & 3 others (Environment & Land Case E401 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2503 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed Geoner Systems' injunction bid because existing 2006 court orders already protected its land, and its online evidence was inadmissible.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Sufficiency of evidence supporting the injunction application
The Plaintiff produced no evidence of the alleged incitement by the 3rd and 4th Defendants; the online links relied on had no evidential value because leave was not sought to open them before the parties
The applicant bore the burden of placing before the court proof of the trespass and incitement said to justify injunctive relief. Although online links were cited, they were never opened in court in the presence of the parties, denying them an opportunity to respond. The court therefore treated the alleged 19th November 2021 incitement as unproven, undermining the foundation of the interlocutory relief sought.
Necessity of a fresh injunction given subsisting orders in HCCC Misc. Application No. 784 of 1996
The order of 5th May 2006, which declared that no person may enter or remain on L.R. No. 12425 without leave of the Plaintiff and provided for eviction on non-compliance, was never set aside and suffices to restrain the Defendants; a fresh injunction application was unnecessary
The Plaintiff itself relied on the 2006 ruling, which contains a declaration restraining all persons from entering the suit property and an enforcement mechanism via eviction applications. Because that order remains in force and unchallenged, it already affords the protection sought. Duplicating it with a new interlocutory injunction would serve no purpose, so the application was dismissed.
Whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendants
The court did not make a definitive finding, but the dismissal was grounded on the sufficiency of the existing orders rather than on an adjudication of the Plaintiff's cause of action against each Defendant
The 1st Defendant argued that no cause of action was disclosed, that the alleged goons were not joined, and that the Defendants neither resided on nor possessed the land. The court did not rule on these submissions expressly; instead it disposed of the application on the narrow basis that the subsisting 2006 orders rendered the injunction application unnecessary. The substantive suit remains pending.
Legal principles established
#- Where a subsisting, unset-aside court order already protects a party's possession of land, it is unnecessary to file a fresh application for injunctive orders
- Online links referred to by a party have no evidential value unless the court grants leave for them to be opened in the presence of all parties, who must be able to watch and respond
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 22nd November, 2021 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (no specific constitutional/statutory provision invoked in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Orbit Chemical Industries Ltd v Nairobi City County & 3 others (Environment & Land Case E401 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2503 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Notice of Motion dated 22nd November, 2021 (suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2503/eng@2022-07-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.