AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedEnvironment & Land Case 306 of 2018 & 139 & 145 of 2019 (Consolidated)· [2023] KEELC 16025 (KLR)
Dee-Em Investments Ltd v Siimbol Investments Ltd & 7 others; Jashani (Interested Party)
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Thika barred all parties from touching disputed Thika land until the ownership case is fully heard and decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is an interlocutory ruling by J G Kemei, J of the Environment and Land Court at Thika in consolidated suits (ELC 306 of 2018 as lead file, with ELC 139 and 145 of 2019) concerning competing claims to land described variously as LR No. 4953/1796 IR 46015 and LR 4953/5879 IR 203757. The plaintiff, Dee-Em Investments Ltd, moved by notice of motion dated 7/2/2023 seeking an injunction against the 5th and 6th Defendants (Karsan and Naran Meghji Rabadia), the Interested Party (Premji Jashani, a contractor) and others from trespassing on, encroaching, fencing or dealing with LR No. 4953/1796, plus an order directing the OCS Thika to assist in service. The plaintiff alleged fencing activity had commenced on the suit land. Only the 5th Defendant opposed, asserting he and the 6th Defendant own LR 4953/5879 as a distinct parcel and that an interim injunction had earlier been granted in their favour. The court reviewed the existing interim orders in the consolidated files: an unopposed injunction of 8/5/2019 protecting LR 4953/1796 in this suit, and Gacheru J's ruling of 29/4/2021 restraining Blue Nile Rolling Mills Ltd from interfering with LR 4953/5879. Finding those orders valid and unchallenged, and that whether the two descriptions denote the same parcel required evaluation of evidence at trial, the court allowed the application in terms of prayers 3 and 4 against all current defendants and the interested party, to preserve the land, with costs in the cause.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether an injunction should issue to preserve the suit land pending hearing
Holding
Application allowed in terms of prayers 3 and 4 against all current defendants and the interested party to preserve the subject land
Reasoning
The court noted existing interim orders in the consolidated suits touching on the suit property under both descriptions (LR 4953/5879 IR 203757 and LR 4953/1796 IR 46015). Those orders were unchallenged and remained valid. Whether the two descriptions refer to the same property is a matter for evidence at trial, but the land required preservation in the interim.
p. 3
Legal principles established
#- Interim orders of the court remain valid and enforceable unless challenged on appeal or review
Court orders
#- 1.Application allowed in terms of Prayer 3 and 4 of the motion against all the current defendants and the interested party
- 2.Injunction against the 5th and 6th Defendants, the Interested Party and any other party from trespassing, encroaching, fencing and dealing with LR No. 4953/1796 pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.OCS Thika Police Station to be served with orders commanding him to assist the Plaintiff/Applicant in service of the orders upon the 5th, 6th Defendants and the Interested Party
- 4.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act over disputes relating to land LR No. 4953/1796 / LR 4953/5879
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dee-Em Investments Ltd v Siimbol Investments Ltd & 7 others; Jashani (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 306 of 2018 & 139 & 145 of 2019 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16025/eng@2023-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.