Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KEELC 4428 (KLR)

Growthpoint Warehousing EPZ Limited v Export Processing Zones Authority & another (Environment & Land Case E034 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4428 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 May 2024
COChristine Ochieng
2,113 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court refused to block the land transfer because the plaintiff failed to pay premiums on time or develop the plot.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff moved the Environment and Land Court at Machakos by Notice of Motion dated 2nd October 2023 seeking an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from trespassing on, leasing out, transferring or interfering with property LR No. 18474/59, an order setting aside the Letter of Offer issued by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant on 14th August 2023, and an order compelling the 1st Defendant to issue lease instruments for the plot. The Plaintiff contended that it complied with the conditions in a 2014 Letter of Offer, completed payment of lease premiums, and took possession, yet the 1st Defendant refused to issue a lease and instead offered the plot to the 2nd Defendant. The 1st Defendant countered that the Plaintiff breached the Letter of Offer by failing to complete premium payments on time, failing to develop the land within 24 months, and accruing substantial rent, service charge and water arrears, prompting termination and the fresh offer to the 2nd Defendant, which had since taken possession and commenced development under a 50-year lease. The court framed a single issue: whether the Plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory injunction. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and the Mrao Ltd definition of a prima facie case, the court found the Plaintiff had not established a prima facie case: the premium was not paid within the stipulated time, no development or excavation had occurred, and a subsisting agreement existed between the Defendants. Citing Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court declined to consider the remaining Giella limbs. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case warranting an interlocutory injunction

Holding

No prima facie case was established; the Plaintiff had not paid the full premium on time, had not developed the land, and a subsisting lease agreement existed between the Defendants

Reasoning

The court applied the Mrao Ltd definition of a prima facie case. On the documents, a subsisting agreement between the 1st and 2nd Defendants predated the suit. The Plaintiff failed to pay the full premium within the time stipulated in the Letter of Offer and never developed the land, as confirmed by photographs. Injunctive relief being equitable, the Plaintiff could not claim it while responsible for the delay, and the orders sought would effectively operate as eviction orders against the 2nd Defendant.

p. 4
02

Whether the court should consider the second and third Giella limbs

Holding

The court declined to consider them since the Plaintiff failed on the first limb

Reasoning

Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court held that where a party fails to establish a prima facie case, there is no need to proceed to the other two limbs of the injunction test.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, as per Giella v Cassman Brown
  • Where a party fails to establish a prima facie case, the court need not determine the other two Giella limbs
  • Injunctive remedies are equitable and a party seeking them must come to court with clean hands

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated the 2nd October, 2023 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs will be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Export Processing Zone Regulations1991

Cases cited (3)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Company Limited
    (1973) EA 358
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank Limited
    (2003) K.L.R 125
  • Nguruman Ltd. v. Jan Bonde Nielsen
    CA No. 77 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (the judgment does not cite a specific provision)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Growthpoint Warehousing EPZ Limited v Export Processing Zones Authority & another (Environment & Land Case E034 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4428 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4428/eng@2024-05-30

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