Mara Siana Conservancy Company Limited v Ani Investment Limited (Environment & Land Case 33 of 2019) [2022] KEELC 3600 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case
Yes - the applicant demonstrated possession and use of the 14 parcels under leases and showed infringement of its legal and proprietary rights by alleged trespass.
The court accepted that the applicant was in possession and use of the 14 parcels, having been lawfully leased, and had outlined how the respondent's acts affected its business and infringed its legal and proprietary rights. Challenges to lease validity (non-registration, unpaid stamp duty) were matters for trial, not interlocutory determination. Applying the Mrao definition, the applicant showed an apparent infringement calling for explanation or rebuttal.
Whether the applicant demonstrated irreparable injury not compensable by damages
Yes - environmental degradation and harm to wildlife, plants and the conservancy business cannot be adequately quantified or compensated in damages.
The court applied Halsbury's and Pius Kipchirchir Kogo definitions of irreparable injury and held that degradation of the environment, wildlife and plant species within the ecosystem cannot be quantified by damages, and that loss of conservation work and tourism business could be beyond recovery. The applicant's demonstration of possession, its conservation business, and the threatened harm met the required threshold.
Whether the balance of convenience favours the applicant
Yes - the inconvenience to the applicant from declining the injunction exceeds that likely to be caused to the respondent.
The court noted the applicant was in possession and occupation of the 14 parcels and that the respondent's alleged trespass affected both business and the environment and wildlife. However, the court qualified the relief: the respondent's own approximately 28-acre parcel was not in dispute, public roads must remain open, and the court cautioned against being used to further business rivals' agendas.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for a temporary injunction must sequentially satisfy the Giella three-pillar test: prima facie case, irreparable harm not compensable in damages, and balance of convenience.
- At the interlocutory stage the court makes no conclusive findings on contested matters such as the validity of unregistered leases.
- Environmental degradation harm to wildlife and plant species is not quantifiable in damages and therefore constitutes irreparable injury.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of injunction restraining the defendant, its servants or agents from interfering with or disrupting the plaintiff's conservation work and business of providing game drives and tourism excursions in parcels Cis-Mara/Siana 'A'/6336, 5935, 6007, 6388, 7307, 5803, 7108, 4931, 5823, 6304, 7126, 5458, 7136 and 5611 or any other parcel within the conservancy except on the public roads and/or access, pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.That the public roads and/or access roads shall remain in use for all parties, camps and/or entities within the large Mara conservancy pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 (1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mara Siana Conservancy Company Limited v Ani Investment Limited (Environment & Land Case 33 of 2019) [2022] KEELC 3600 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Notice of motion dated May 29, 2019 (suit filed at Migori, Environment and Land Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3600/eng@2022-07-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.