Lunani & another (Suing as the executors of the will of the Late Shaphan Lunani Walela) v Carlsberg International Limited & 4 others
The bottom line
#The Kitale Environment and Land Court blocked Carlsberg-linked companies from selling or touching a disputed Kitale farm until the ownership battle is fully heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case
Yes - the Applicants exhibited instruments of ownership and demonstrated possession and use of the property to the exclusion of the Defendants.
Both sides claimed the parcel through separate title documents. The Applicants produced the title, official search, death certificate, succession pleadings and transfer consent documents from Lands Limited, and showed possession since 1971. The Defendants' advocates' demand notice admitted the Plaintiffs were on the land. The court could not resolve rival titles at the interlocutory stage but found the Applicants' exhibited instruments and possession sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Whether the Applicants would suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages, and where the balance of convenience lies
Yes - the Defendants intended to sell the property, and loss of long-term use and sale to third parties would occasion substantial loss; the balance of convenience favours the Applicants.
The Applicants had been in occupation and use of the land for over 50 years and had even obtained a loan facility on it. The Defendants' Notice of Cessation of All Activity demonstrated an intention to sell. Sale to third parties would cause substantial loss not adequately compensable in damages, and the balance of convenience tilted towards the Applicants given their long possession.
Whether the local administration could lawfully permit a private citizen to use the land
No - absent evidence of authority from the National Land Commission or the Commissioner of Lands, the assertion of permission from local administration was refused.
The Defendants admitted the Plaintiffs were cultivating about 500 acres by virtue of 'permission from the local administration'. The court found it unclear how local administration could authorise use of land without proper authority from the National Land Commission or the former Commissioner of Lands, and, in the absence of supporting evidence, rejected that assertion.
Legal principles established
#- The burden lies on the applicant for a temporary injunction to satisfy the court that the criteria for its grant are met.
- The grant of an injunction is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously.
- Where rival title documents over the same parcel exist, their authenticity and validity is a matter for trial, not interlocutory determination.
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction issued against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally, restraining them from encroaching onto, setting foot on, trespassing on, taking possession of, offering for sale, selling, or dealing with or interfering with L.R No. 3803/3 situate in Kitale within Trans Nzoia County, pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Plaintiffs given 30 days to file and serve the trial bundle complying with the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions
- 3.Defendants required to file their respective pleadings within 14 days of the order and 30 days from service of the Plaintiffs' bundle to file and serve their bundle(s)
- 4.Plaintiffs to serve the 4th and 5th Defendants with the Ruling within seven (7) days of delivery
- 5.Parties to indicate in writing at least fifteen (15) days before the mention date any objection to production of documents or requirement for makers of documents to attend at trial
- 6.Matter to be mentioned on 9/02/2023 to confirm compliance and fix a hearing date
- 7.Applicants awarded the costs of the Application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act; application brought under Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 and Order 51 Rules 1, 3, 4, 7 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Noah Andrea v Frodak Services Limited & Butali Sugar Mills Limited[2026] KEELRC 2751 (KLR)1 Oct 2026
- Noah Andrea v Frodak Services Limited & Butali Sugar Mills Limited[2026] KEELRC 2751 (KLR)1 Oct 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lunani & another (Suing as the executors of the will of the Late Shaphan Lunani Walela) v Carlsberg International Limited & 4 others", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case E25 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/14831/eng@2022-11-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.