Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of motion dated 28/3/2023 (main suit number not stated in the judgment text)· [2024] KEELC 1179 (KLR)

Laset Limited v Koinange (Environment & Land Case E024 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1179 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 February 2024
MGM.N. Gicheru
545 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court blocked a landowner from interfering with disputed Kitengela plot boundaries after finding possible fraud, encroachment, and a risk the land would be sold.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, a company that purchased L.R. Kajiado/Kitengela/27072-82, 202 and 203 from the late Ntooki Ole Papu in 1982, moved the court by notice of motion dated 28/3/2023 under the Environment and Land Court Act, the Civil Procedure Act and Articles 48, 50 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. It sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the original beacons and boundaries of the suit parcels, an order that the OCS Oloosirkon Police Station ensure compliance, and costs. The plaintiff alleged that the respondent fraudulently procured title to L.R. 92075, subdivided it into parcels 100011-1000134 encroaching 5 hectares onto the plaintiff's land, used forged documents to obtain registration, was charged at the Ngong Law Courts, and might sell the land to unsuspecting members of the public, occasioning irreparable loss. The motion, though served, was unopposed. Counsel identified two issues: whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria for injunctive relief, and costs. The court found the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, shown encroachment and a risk of sale of the land with no guarantee of recovery, and held that all the prerequisites in Giella v Cassman Brown (1973) E.A. 358 were met. It allowed the motion in terms of prayers 3 and 4, ordered costs in the cause, and directed delivery of the ruling virtually at Kajiado on 6 February 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a temporary injunction restraining interference with beacons and boundaries of suit parcels

Holding

Yes. The court found a prima facie case with a probability of success, a real risk the defendant would sell the land causing irrecoverable loss, and held the Giella v Cassman Brown prerequisites met, allowing prayers 3 and 4.

Reasoning

The court considered the unopposed motion, the supporting affidavit and annexures, and counsel's submissions. It found the plaintiff had shown encroachment by the defendant onto its land following the fraudulent subdivision of L.R. 92075, and that the defendant might sell the land, causing loss not compensable in damages. Preservation of the subject matter of the suit justified the injunction. The respondent, though served, filed no reply.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A temporary injunction may issue where a prima facie case with a probability of success is shown, irreparable harm that damages cannot compensate is demonstrated, and the balance of convenience favours the grant.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, his agents, servants or any person acting under or through him, from interfering with the original beacons and boundaries concerning parcels Kajiado/Kitengela/27072-82, 202 and 203 pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
  2. 2.The OCS Oloosirkon Police Station to ensure compliance with the injunction order
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Environment and Land Court ActSections 13(1) and (2), 16A(1) and (2), 19(1) and (2)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 48, 50, 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (1)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown
    (1973) E.A. 358
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 13(1) and (2), 16A(1) and (2) and 19(1) and (2) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 48, 50 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Laset Limited v Koinange (Environment & Land Case E024 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1179 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of motion dated 28/3/2023 (main suit number not stated in the judgment text). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1179/eng@2024-02-06

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