Gatabaki & 2 others v Sanyi Jituan Sensen Investment Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E075 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 779 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Nairobi's Environment and Land Court ordered both sides to leave disputed land untouched as it was before the alleged wrongful act, until trial decides the ownership fight.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes. Being both in possession and occupation of the suit land, the plaintiff established an interest over the suit property and her right of quiet possession was allegedly infringed by trespass.
The court noted the plaintiff is the registered owner of LR No. 5980 and LR No. 4508/1 and is in occupation. The alleged trespass and destruction of structures interfered with her occupation without lawful cause. Her rights as registered proprietor can only be curtailed in accordance with the law, establishing a prima facie case with probability of success.
Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss not adequately compensable by damages
Yes. The court found the plaintiff likely to suffer irreparable loss and/or injury which cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages.
Relying on Niaz Mohamm Janmohammed v Commissioner for Lands, the court held that the plaintiff's crystallized right of occupation, if violated, cannot be equated to compensation by damages. No amount of money can compensate the infringement of the right of quiet possession.
Where the balance of convenience lies
The balance of convenience tilts in favour of maintaining the status quo, which is that which existed before the wrongful act.
The court found the matter raises serious conflicts of facts which cannot be determined at the interlocutory stage. A temporary injunction is meant to preserve and protect the suit property; the status quo before the alleged wrongful interference should therefore be maintained pending trial.
Legal principles established
#- In an interlocutory application the court is not required to make conclusive or definitive findings of fact or law.
- Conditions for granting an interlocutory injunction: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience.
- A registered owner is deemed an absolute and indefeasible proprietor whose proprietorship can only be challenged as provided by law.
- Where there are serious conflicts of facts, the trial court should maintain the status quo until the dispute is decided on trial.
- A temporary injunction is issued to preserve the property in dispute pending disposal of the suit.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of status quo issued pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40(1)(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 (inherent interlocutory jurisdiction of the court over land disputes)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gatabaki & 2 others v Sanyi Jituan Sensen Investment Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E075 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 779 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/779/eng@2024-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.