Plaintiff v Marko Kusienya Sinino Estate & Others (Injunction Application)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega dismissed a landowner's injunction bid because their land claim had already been decided in earlier proceedings.
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 reliefs sought (interlocutory injunction, prohibitory order and status quo) should issue
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case warranting an interlocutory injunction
No prima facie case established; the plaintiff's claim rests on ownership of Kakamega/Lugari/101 which was already resolved in Kakamega Misc. Award No. 106 of 2000, inviting res judicata concerns
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman, the court held the plaintiff must surmount the prima facie case hurdle first. The core of the plaintiff's case, ownership of Kakamega/Lugari/101, was conceded as resolved in the tribunal award adopted as a judgment in Misc. Award No. 106 of 2000. The court could not fathom how enforcement of a decree in another suit could be sought through the present suit, and found no prima facie case.
Legal principles established
#- The Giella test conditions for an interlocutory injunction are separate, distinct and sequential hurdles which must each be surmounted
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2023 dismissed with costs to the first and fourth defendants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court) - as inferred from the subject matter; the judgment does not expressly invoke a provision
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunction restraining defendants from evicting or interfering with plaintiff's quiet use and enjoyment of the suit properties
Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success
Prohibitory order restraining further alienation of land parcels Kakamega/Lugari/2076, 2077, 2078, 2089, 2080, 5158 and 5159
No case made for the prohibitory orders
Alternative relief of maintenance of status quo as at 19th June 2023
Application dismissed in its entirety
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the first and fourth defendants
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.
I am yet to fathom why and how the plaintifi intends to obtain enforcement of a decree made in another suit through this present suit.
If prima facie case is not established, then irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no consideration.
I find no merit in Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2023 and I dismiss it with costs to the first and fourth defendants.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the plaintiff as both 'he' and 'she', creating ambiguity as to the plaintiff's identity
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Plaintiff v Marko Kusienya Sinino Estate & Others (Injunction Application)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2023 (arising from plaint dated 19th June 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3436/eng@2024-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.