Mangu v Salem Block Limited (Environment & Land Case E043 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 735 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Machakos Environment and Land Court froze all activity on an Athi River quarry plot after finding the owner held a valid title while the quarry company kept digging despite earlier court orders.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to orders of interlocutory injunction pending the outcome of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor with a Certificate of Title, while the Defendant's lease was entered into during the pendency of ELC No. 140 of 2019 and after status quo orders, and the Defendant did not prove its Lessors were registered proprietors
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the court noted the Plaintiff held a Certificate of Title since 4th December 2013. The Defendant's registered lease dated 28th July 2020 was granted when status quo orders in ELC No. 140 of 2019 were in place, and no Certificate of Title in the Lessors' names was produced. Quarrying had altered the land with trenches, valleys and gorges.
Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
Yes - relying on Nguruman, the injuries are not speculative
The court associated itself with Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen and found that the quarrying activities, which had already created gaping valleys, gorges, furrows and trenches on the suit land, would cause irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by damages if orders were not granted.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It tilts in the Plaintiff's favour because the Defendant violated the status quo orders in ELC No. 140 of 2019
The court noted that the status quo order issued on 24th November 2020 barred any party from developing, constructing, selling or changing the status of the suit property, yet the Defendant continued quarrying. Continuing to quarry in breach of those orders meant the balance of convenience favoured preserving the Plaintiff's possession.
Legal principles established
#- A registered proprietor with a Certificate of Title who establishes quarrying on his land contrary to subsisting status quo orders has a prima facie case for interlocutory relief
Court orders
#- 1.That obtaining status quo be and is hereby maintained order where no party should lease, develop, construct, sell or change the status of this suit land in any manner whatsoever pending the hearing and determination of this suit
- 2.Costs will abide the outcome of this suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land in Machakos County
Relief refused
#Specific interim injunction restraining the Defendant from quarrying, trespassing or interfering with LR 26681/18
The court instead maintained the existing status quo given the related suit ELC No. 140 of 2019
Costs
Costs will abide the outcome of this suit
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
That obtaining status quo be and is hereby maintained order where no party should lease, develop, construct, sell or change the status of this suit land in any manner whatsoever pending the hearing and determination of this suit
Costs will abide the outcome of this suit
I find that the Plaintifi has established a prima facie case as against the Defendant
The Defendant has not explained if the Lessors were registered proprietors of the suit land. The Defendant has not produced a Certificate of Title to the leased land in the Lessors' names
I note the Defendant's actions of undertaking quarrying activities is actually contrary to the court order as no party was allowed to change the status of the suit land
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the suit's case number or the Defendant's full name; the extract is truncated at the opening
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mangu v Salem Block Limited (Environment & Land Case E043 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 735 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in extract (Machakos ELC, Notice of Motion dated 17th October 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/735/eng@2024-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.