Marete v Kiogora (Environment & Land Case E001 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 1722 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Meru blocked a landowner's neighbour from trespassing or building on her plot because she proved ownership and the risk of harm.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the Giella criteria for a temporary injunction
Yes; the applicant's ownership was undisputed and the defendant's encroachment was demonstrated, while the defendant did not oppose the application despite service
The applicant annexed a lease, official search, lease agreements, demand notice, agricultural damage assessment and photographs. Her right of ownership was not disputed, the respondent was duly notified, service was acknowledged by affidavit, and police efforts to stop the acts were futile. No replying affidavit was filed despite service and status quo orders.
Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction
Yes; the inconvenience to the applicant in withholding the injunction exceeds that to the respondent
The court noted the absence of a land registrar's or surveyor's report on boundaries, but held that the respondent's failure to file a replying affidavit despite service, and the late, unopposed review application filed by a law firm not on record, meant the greater prejudice would fall on the applicant if the injunction were withheld.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking a temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable loss and damage, and that the balance of convenience tilts in their favour
- A mandatory injunction is granted at the interlocutory stage only in exceptional circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his agents or employees from trespassing into, entering, building, excavating, subdividing, selling, leasing, fencing off or in any other way interfering with Meru Municipality Block II/312 pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Plaintiff to execute an undertaking as to damages of Kshs.150,000/= within seven days, failing which the injunction orders shall stand vacated
- 3.Mention on May 20, 2024 for case conference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land L.R Meru Municipality Block II/312 (specific provision not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Marete v Kiogora (Environment & Land Case E001 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 1722 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Meru ELC; application dated January 24, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1722/eng@2024-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.