Ahmed & 20 others v Karama & 10 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E014 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5242 (KLR)

The court relied on the Mrao definition of a prima facie case. It accepted the Applicants' averment that they purchased the suit property from the Defendants' fathers, who executed sale agreements and appointed an agent to receive payment, but declined to transfer. As administrators of the deceased vendors' estates, the Defendants were arguably bound to complete the transfers. The threatened distress for rent and alienation supported the inference of apparent infringement of the Applicants' rights.

Applying Nguruman and Pius Kipchirchir Kogo, the court held that injury to land rights, with threats of eviction, distress and attachment, was actual, substantial and not measurable in monetary terms. The Applicants faced eviction from property they claimed as lawful owners, and damages would not be an adequate remedy if the property were alienated or distributed among the Defendants pending trial.

Relying on Paul Gitonga Wanjau and Amir Suleiman, the court held there was a lower risk of injustice in granting the injunction, since the court had not yet interrogated all documents relevant to the history of the transactions. Preserving the suit land pending full trial better protected both parties, whereas refusal risked the property being wasted, alienated or distributed before the merits were determined.

The court reiterated that costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, citing Harun Mutwiri, Bidco Africa and Hussein Muhumed Sirat. However, because the suit is still pending full trial, the court elected not to award costs to any party at this interlocutory stage and instead made the costs of the application costs in the cause.