Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KEELC 144 (KLR)

Yongo v County Government of Nairobi & another (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E092 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 144 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court / High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (court not expressly named; delivered by A. Omollo J at Nairobi)
24 January 2024
AOA. OMOLLO
1,274 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court refused to protect three Shauri Moyo traders because their facility was allotted to a committee, not to them personally.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs/Applicants, who described themselves as registered allottees/tenants of Toilet Block Number A (437T) within Shauri Moyo Market, Nairobi County, brought a notice of motion dated 4th April 2023 under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and allied provisions seeking interlocutory injunctions restraining the Defendants from taking possession, leasing, alienating or transferring the facility or otherwise interfering with their tenancy and management. They relied on a letter dated 14th February 2023 said to threaten unlawful revocation of their allotment, contending they had a prima facie case, would suffer irreparable loss given their 12 years of investment and reliance on the facility for their livelihood, and that the balance of convenience favoured them. The 1st Defendant/Respondent opposed through grounds of opposition, asserting the Applicants were mere licensees, that the allotment was specific to toilet blocks, that it retained the mandate to organise and run the facilities, and that it was entitled to terminate with one month's notice under clause 32 of the tenancy terms. In a judgment delivered on 24th January 2024, A. Omollo J found that the original allotment of 12th April 2011 was to the Old Market Committee and the Applicants were merely selected to run the facility, so the allotment was not to them in their individual capacities; since the suit was not brought on behalf of the Old Market Committee, no prima facie case was established. The court further held that the directive of 23rd February 2023 did not take away the facility, which remained with the sitting management committee, and that any loss would be monetary and assessable as damages. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants had a prima facie case

Holding

No prima facie case was demonstrated because the allotment letter was addressed to the Old Market Committee, with the Applicants merely selected to run the facility, and the suit was not brought on behalf of that Committee

Reasoning

The court compared the allotment letter of 12th April 2011 with the letter of 23rd February 2023. The original allotment was to the Old Market Committee and the Applicants were selected to run the facility, so the allotment was not to them in their individual capacities. Since the suit was not brought on behalf of the Old Market Committee, the Applicants failed to establish a prima facie case.

p. 3
02

Whether irreparable loss would be suffered

Holding

No irreparable loss was shown; the directive left the toilet blocks to be run by the sitting management committee and any loss would be monetary and assessable

Reasoning

The court found that the letter of 23rd February 2023 did not take away the facility, as it still left the toilet blocks to be run by the sitting management committee. Accordingly no loss or damage could be apportioned to the Defendant, and in any event the nature of the loss would be monetary and thus compensable by damages.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success; where the suit is not brought in the capacity in which the right is alleged to vest, no prima facie case is shown
  • Where the alleged loss is capable of being assessed in monetary terms, damages are an adequate remedy and an injunction will be refused

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 4th April 2023 seeking injunctive reliefs is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e)
  • High Court (Practice and Procedure) RulesPart 1, Rules 1, 2 and 3
  • Judicature ActSection 10
  • Nairobi City Council Public Participation ActNot specified

Cases cited (1)

  • Waithaka Vs ICDC Civil Case No. 321 Of 2001
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 10 of the Judicature Act and Part 1 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the High Court (Practice and Procedure Rules)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Yongo v County Government of Nairobi & another (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E092 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 144 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/144/eng@2024-01-24

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