Wanjiru & another v Tumbo & 11 others (Sued as the duly Appointed Attorney of James Kipkoech)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court refused to stop construction on disputed land because the owners couldn't prove their claim or show they'd suffer harm they couldn't recover later.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs met the threshold for a temporary injunction
They did not; no prima facie case was established and no irreparable harm was demonstrated
The Certificate of Lease relied on was incomplete and no further evidence of irreparable harm was presented. Photographs showed substantially developed structures, suggesting the Plaintiffs could not have merely stumbled upon the development. The court resolved the application on the balance of convenience, holding that ownership is the crux of the suit to be determined at trial, and developments could be run down later.
Legal principles established
#- A temporary injunction cannot be claimed as a matter of right, neither can it be denied arbitrarily by the court
- An applicant for a temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case, irreparable damage, and, in case of doubt, the balance of convenience
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of Motion dated December 15, 2021 dismissed
- 2.Costs to abide the determination of the main suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land disputes; interim relief under Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanjiru & another v Tumbo & 11 others (Sued as the duly Appointed Attorney of James Kipkoech)", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case E431 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/14493/eng@2022-10-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.