Milfan Developers Limited v Sharbaid & another
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court froze dealings over a Mombasa plot because the claimed buyer had no sale agreement or proof of payment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established for an interlocutory injunction
Yes - the plaintiff established a prima facie case with probability of success given the absence of a sale agreement, proof of payment, and the discrepancy in transfer dates.
The 1st defendant claimed a purchase for Kshs 10,000,000 but annexed no sale agreement and no proof of payment. The transfer she alleged was dated 7 December 2016 yet registered on 15 July 2021, about five years later, and the register extracts showed a transfer dated 14 July 2021. These anomalies, unexplained, favoured the plaintiff's claim of fraud.
Irreparable loss and balance of convenience
Both favoured the plaintiff: dealing with the property could lead to its loss, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the registration status quo.
The court noted the plaintiff appeared to have sold the suit land to the interested party for Kshs 56,500,000, so loss of the property would occasion substantial loss. Even on the balance of convenience, maintaining the registration status of the property pending trial was the appropriate course.
Treatment of the 2nd defendant's late-filed grounds of opposition
The grounds of opposition, filed after the application had been heard, were ignored.
The application was heard on 27 June 2022 but the State Law Office filed grounds of opposition on 4 July 2022. The court held it would be improper to consider grounds not filed and served before the hearing, as the plaintiff would have no opportunity to respond; a formal application could still be made.
Legal principles established
#- In an injunction application the applicant must show a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable loss, and failing which the court decides on a balance of convenience (Giella v Cassman Brown).
- A party alleging a purchase of land should produce a sale agreement and proof of payment of the purchase price; absence of both undermines the alleged transaction at the interlocutory stage.
Court orders
#- 1.Interlocutory injunction stopping the 1st defendant from selling, charging, subdividing, leasing or otherwise dealing with Subdivision No 3448 (Original Number 544/24) Section III, Mainland North pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Maintenance of the current status quo as to possession and use pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Order of inhibition stopping the Land Registrar Mombasa from registering any dealing or disposition over the suit land
- 4.Costs of the application to the plaintiff as against the 1st defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (Article 162(2)(b) Constitution / ELC Act); not expressly stated in the ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Amri v Milfan Developers Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E045 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6993 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6993 (KLR)15 Oct 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Milfan Developers Limited v Sharbaid & another", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case 14 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/13698/eng@2022-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.