Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEnvironment & Land Case 231 of 2021· [2023] KEELC 21060 (KLR)

Shokat Ebrahim Ali Omar (Suing on his behalf and as legal representative of the Estates of Sakinabal Ali Mohamed (Deceased) v Intergra Auctioneers (K) Company & 3 others

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
9 October 2023
17,899 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~72 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Mombasa blocked the auction of a disputed Old Town Mombasa property, ruling that contested ownership alone justified protecting it until trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (L.L. Naikuni, J) determined two Notices of Motion: the plaintiff's application dated 18th November 2021 (amended 24th January 2022) seeking a temporary injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from auctioning Mombasa/Block XLI/156 in Old Town Mombasa, and the 2nd Defendant's (Kenya Finance Bank Limited, in liquidation) application dated 22nd August 2022 seeking review of the court's ruling of 18th July 2022 dismissing its preliminary objection. The plaintiff, suing on his own behalf and as legal representative of the estate of Sakinabai Ali Mohamed under a limited grant ad colligenda bona, claimed the deceased registered owners held the property in trust for him and his siblings, and that the bank's threatened auction was unlawful. The bank asserted a 1991 third-party charge securing a loan to one Shokat Ebrahim Juneja and due statutory notices. Framing three issues, the court applied Giella v Cassman Brown and found the contest over ownership established a prima facie case; that damages would not adequately compensate given the plaintiff's occupation and the bank's liquidation; and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, statutory notices not having been served on the deceased's estates. The injunction application was allowed in its entirety. The review application failed: the alleged omission in the 18th July 2022 ruling was not an error apparent on the face of the record, and allowing review would re-open the case afresh. Costs of both applications were awarded to the plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant, with the suit set down for hearing on 25th April 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for interlocutory injunction

Holding

Yes - the contest over ownership of the land sufficed at the interlocutory stage

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and MRAO Ltd, the court held that at interlocutory stage it does not make final findings of contested facts. The parties were contesting ownership of the suit property, the plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest under a trust, and the 2nd Defendant was in liquidation. That contest alone established a prima facie case with probability of success.

p. 25
02

Whether irreparable injury and balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff

Holding

Yes - damages would not adequately compensate and the balance of convenience tilted in the plaintiff's favour

Reasoning

The court found the plaintiff would not be adequately compensated in damages given his continuous occupation of the suit property and the 2nd Defendant's liquidation. Statutory notices had not been served on the estates of the deceased registered owners before exercising the statutory power of sale, so granting the injunction carried the lower risk of injustice.

p. 27
03

Whether the 2nd Defendant made out grounds for review of the 18th July 2022 ruling

Holding

No - no error apparent on the face of the record; the application sought to re-open the case

Reasoning

The court revisited its earlier ruling and found it had explained at length why the preliminary objection was dismissed: the plaintiff's claim of beneficial interest required evidence and could not be determined via a preliminary objection. The alleged omission was not a self-evident error, and allowing review would re-open the case afresh contrary to the principle that litigation must come to an end.

p. 33

Legal principles established

#
  • A limited grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona does not confer power to institute a suit on behalf of an estate
  • Where parties contest ownership of land, that contest is enough to establish a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction at the interlocutory stage
  • Review is confined to error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-open a case afresh

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 18th November, 2021 amended on 24th January, 2022 is found to have merit and is allowed in its entirety
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion application dated 22nd August, 2022 is found to lack merit and is dismissed
  3. 3.An order of temporary injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally from selling, transferring, disposing of or dealing in or conducting sale by public auction of MOMBASA/BLOCK XLI/156 situate in Old Town Mombasa together with its fixtures and improvements pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  4. 4.The matter to be heard expeditiously on 25th April, 2024, with a mention on 31st January, 2024 for ascertainment and confirmation of the orders and compliance with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
  5. 5.Costs of both applications awarded to the Plaintiff as against the 2nd Defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Kenya Deposit Insurance ActSection 56(2); Section 4
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3(3) and 4; Order 45 Rules 1, 2 and 3; Order 51 Rule 1; Order 9 Rule 2(c); Order 11
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e), 80, 27(1)
  • Banking ActSection 44A
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010general reference

Cases cited (38)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Company Limited
    (1973) E.A 358

    Principles for granting interlocutory injunctions

  • Waithaka v Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation
    (2001) KLR 374

    Injunction may issue despite damages being available where conduct is high-handed; meaning of 'doubt'

  • Francis Mbaria Wambugu v Jijenge Credit Limited
    [2020] eKLR

    In duplum rule under Section 44A of the Banking Act

  • Kenya Hotels Ltd v Oriental Commercial Bank Ltd
    [2019] eKLR

    Explanation of the in duplum rule

  • Lee G. Muthoga v Habib Zurich Finance (K) Limited & Kenya National Capital Corporation
    [2019] eKLR

    Introduction of the in duplum principle

  • Muiruri v Bank of Baroda (K) Limited
    (2001) KLR 183

    Land disputes evoke emotion; damages may not adequately compensate

  • Marteve Guest House Limited v Nienga & 3 others
    (Civil Appeal 400 of 2018) [2022] KECA 539 (KLR)

    Charged property of a deceased chargor remains estate property subject to debt; chargee must obtain letters of administration to exercise statutory power of sale

  • Re the Matter of the Estate of Morarji Bhanji Dhanak (Deceased)
    [2000] eKLR

    Limited grants ad colligenda bona cannot be used to institute suit

  • Elijah Nderitu Gachaga v Francis Gakuu Gachaga & 2 others
    [2019] eKLR

    Ad colligenda grant is not appropriate to clothe a party with locus to file a suit

  • MRAO Limited v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others
    [2003] eKLR

    Definition of prima facie case; when a mortgagee will be restrained from exercising power of sale

  • Florence Khayanga Musanga v Transnational Bank Ltd & another
    [2020] eKLR

    Temporary injunction issued solely to prevent grave and irreparable injury

  • Susan Adoyo v Equity Bank (K) Limited
    [2021] eKLR

    Sentimental attachment to security not a ground for injunction; balance of convenience

  • Nancy Wacici v Kenya Women Micro Finance Bank Limited
    [2017] eKLR

    Court has no power to prevent proper exercise of an arisen statutory power of sale

  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Moses Kogo
    Civil Appeal No. 322 of 2000 (2001) I EA 173

    What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record for review

  • Abasi Balinda v Frederick Kangwamu and Another
    (1963) E.A 557

    A good ground of appeal may not be a ground for review

  • National Bank of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau
    [1997] eKLR

    Review only for self-evident error or omission not requiring elaborate argument

  • Wilmot Mwadilo, Edwin Mwakaya, Amos Nyatta & Patrick Mbinga v Eliud Timothy Mwamunga & Sagalla Ranchers Limited
    [2017] eKLR

    Upholding a preliminary objection would be draconian where substantive issues emerge

  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat

    Guided the court's determination on the preliminary objection (referred to as 'supra')

  • Kenya Orient Insurance v Zachary Nyambane Omwagwa
    [2021] eKLR

    Error apparent on the face of the record warrants review; error of law can ground review

  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze
    (2005) UGSC 1

    What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record

  • Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya
    [2019] eKLR

    Detailed principles on the law of review

  • Mbuthia v Jimba Credit Corporation Ltd
    988 KLR 1

    Court at interlocutory stage only weighs relative strength of parties' cases

  • Edwin Kamau Muniu v Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd

    Interlocutory application determined on usual injunction criteria

  • Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai

    Meaning of irreparable injury and balance of convenience

  • Paul Gitonga Wanjau v Gathuthis Tea Factor Company Ltd & 2 others
    (2016) eKLR

    Balance of convenience and maintaining the status quo

  • Amir Suleiman v Amboseli Resort Limited
    [2004] eKLR

    Court should opt for the lower rather than higher risk of injustice

  • Robert Mugo Wa Karanja v Ecobank (Kenya) Limited & Another
    [2019] eKLR

    Circumstances for granting temporary injunction under Order 40 Rule 1

  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others

    Three Giella conditions applied as sequential, distinct hurdles

  • Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Limited v Afraha Education Society
    [2001] Vol. 1 EA 86

    Sequential application of injunction conditions

  • Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR

    Section 80 gives power of review; Order 45 restricts grounds

  • Sarder Mohamed v Charan Singh Nand Sing and Another
    (1959) EA 793

    Section 80 confers unfettered discretion on review

  • Ajit Kumar Rath v State of Orisa & Others
    9 Supreme Court Cases 596

    Scope of review power; limited to patent error staring in the face

  • Tokesi Mambili and others v Simion Litsanga

    Requirements for obtaining review

  • Evan Bwire v Andrew Aginda
    Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2006

    Review allowed only on strong grounds; effect of re-opening case afresh

  • Stephen Githua Kimani v Nancy Wanjira Waruingi T/A Providence Auctioneers
    (2016) eKLR

    Cited with Evan Bwire on limits of review

  • Andrew G. Muchai v Chase Bank Limited
    (2016) eKLR

    Meaning of receivership and need for leave under Section 56(2) KDIA

  • Presbyterian Foundation & Another v East Africa Partnership Limited & Another
    [2012] eKLR

    Proprietary interest determinations go to merits and cannot be resolved via preliminary objection

  • Sagalla Lodge Limited v Samwuel Mazera Mwamunga & another
    [2022] eKLR

    Costs follow events under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act; interlocutory applications under Order 40 and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shokat Ebrahim Ali Omar (Suing on his behalf and as legal representative of the Estates of Sakinabal Ali Mohamed (Deceased) v Intergra Auctioneers (K) Company & 3 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 231 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/21060/eng@2023-10-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.