Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 20/12/2023· [2024] KEELC 777 (KLR)

Loresho Gem Limited & another v Registered Officials of Loresho North Residents’ Association (Environment & Land Case E224 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 777 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 February 2024
2,961 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court refused to order a neighbour to demolish an access-blocking wall, ruling that disputed road ownership must be resolved at a full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Mogeni J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 20/12/2023 brought by the Plaintiffs/Applicants under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The Applicants, proprietors of LR 7917/5 and 7917/6 Loresho, sought mandatory and temporary injunctions compelling the Defendant/Respondent to remove a wall erected on 30/10/2023 on Loresho Close Road which allegedly blocked their access, alternatively restraining further construction, and authorising them to demolish the wall themselves. The Defendant countered that it was developing its own property, that the parcels were served through Loresho Ridge Road, and that the wall was within its land. The court framed three issues: the thresholds for temporary and mandatory injunctions and costs. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, Mrao Ltd, Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agro-export (as approved in Kenya Breweries Ltd v Washington O. Okeyo) and Kenleb Cons Ltd, the court held that no prima facie case was established, that the Director of Surveys' letter did not conclusively establish the road's status, and that no special circumstances justified a mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage. The balance of convenience lay in maintaining the status quo - no further construction or destruction of the wall pending trial. The application was dismissed with costs abiding the outcome of the main suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Threshold for mandatory injunction

Holding

Not met; mandatory interlocutory injunctions require special circumstances and the clearest of cases

Reasoning

The court applied Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agro-export as approved in Kenya Breweries Ltd v Washington O. Okeyo, holding that a mandatory injunction which would amount to a major part of the relief claimed must be approached with caution and granted only in a clear case, with a higher degree of assurance than for a prohibitory injunction. No special circumstances were shown.

p. 4
02

Prima facie case and balance of convenience for temporary injunction

Holding

Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case; balance of convenience favours the Defendant/maintaining the status quo

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, the court found conflicting evidence on whether Loresho Close Road is public or private; the Director of Surveys' letter was inconclusive. Being unable to state authoritatively where the access road lies, the court held the balance of convenience lay in maintaining the status quo pending trial.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application requires special circumstances and a clear case, applying a higher standard than for prohibitory injunctions
  • Where the court is in doubt, it should decide on the balance of convenience, which here lay in maintaining the status quo

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1, 1(A) & (B)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Laws of KenyaSections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Constitution of KenyaProtection of property rights (referred to generally)

Cases cited (10)

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    [1973] EA 358
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others
    [2003] KLR 125
  • Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham
    [1971] 1 CH 340
  • Redland Bricks Ltd vs Morris
    [1970] AC 652
  • Kenya Breweries Ltd & Another v Washington O. Okeyo
    [2002] eKLR
  • Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agro-export
    [1986] 1 ALL E.R
  • Nation Media Group & 2 Others v John Harun Mwau
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenleb Cons Ltd v New Gatitu Services Station Ltd & Another
    [1990] KLR 557
  • Olympic Sports House Ltd v School Equipment Centre Ltd
    [2012] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 Rules 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Laws of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Loresho Gem Limited & another v Registered Officials of Loresho North Residents’ Association (Environment & Land Case E224 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 777 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 20/12/2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/777/eng@2024-02-19

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