Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowed· [2024] KEELC 6005 (KLR)

Mathiomi Holdings Limited v Mathiomi House Limited & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 005 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6005 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 September 2024
JOJ. O. Olola
2,636 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nyeri court temporarily blocked the transfer of two family-owned Karatina properties pending a full trial, confirming you cannot win a permanent injunction early.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Mathiomi Holdings Limited, a family company, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 12th September 2023 seeking temporary, mandatory and permanent injunctions restraining the Defendants from interfering with two Karatina properties, Karatina Town/Block 1/241 and 1/242, which it claimed to own and lease to 85 tenants. The Plaintiff alleged that Mathiomi House Limited, whose directors and shareholders overlap with its own, had fraudulently caused the properties to be transferred using forged documents and had issued notices demanding that tenants pay rent to it instead. Mathiomi House Limited opposed, asserting that the family patriarch, Sospeter Njogu Mahihu, as sole surviving director of the Plaintiff, independently incorporated the 1st and 2nd Defendants in October 2020 and transferred the parcels to them to meet his medical needs. Mathiomi Properties Limited (2nd Defendant), through an affidavit attributed to Sospeter, supported the Plaintiff, denying any transfer to the 1st Defendant. The Land Registrar and Attorney General confirmed the current registered owners and denied fraud in the registration. Applying the Giella v Casman Brown principles and Mrao's definition of a prima facie case, the court found that allotment letters and a certificate of lease showed the properties were once registered in the Plaintiff's name before the 2020 transfers, and that disputed directors challenged the transfer made by a single director now said to suffer senile dementia. The court declined a permanent injunction, holding it is only grantable after full trial, and allowed the application in terms of Prayer 3, issuing a temporary injunction preserving the properties, with costs to abide the suit's outcome.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie case for temporary injunction

Holding

The Plaintiff established a prima facie case: documents showed the suit properties were once registered in its name before the 2020 transfers to the 1st and 2nd Defendants, and admitted directors dispute the manner of transfer

Reasoning

Letters of Allotment showed the two properties were allotted to Mathiomi Holdings Ltd in January 1999 and a Certificate of Lease confirmed registration of one parcel in the Plaintiff's name in March 1999. Since admitted directors and shareholders dispute the transfer effected by a single now-incapacitated director, the court found the rights alleged had apparently been infringed, warranting an explanation at trial.

p. 5
02

Availability of permanent injunction at interlocutory stage

Holding

A permanent injunction cannot be granted on an interlocutory application as it determines the parties' rights and is only granted after full hearing

Reasoning

The court distinguished a perpetual injunction, which amounts to a decree finally determining rights after evidence on the merits, from an interlocutory injunction preserving the position pending trial. Since the suit had not been heard, prayer 5 was not available to the Plaintiff at that stage.

p. 4
03

Preservation of disputed family company assets pending trial

Holding

Given the disputed circumstances in which the properties changed hands from the Plaintiff to the Defendants, preservation pending full inquiry was fair and just

Reasoning

The court noted conflicting averments on Sospeter Njogu Mahihu's directorship and capacity, including that a man diagnosed with senile dementia in April 2022 allegedly swore an affidavit in December 2023. Given these contested facts, the just course was to preserve the properties pending trial.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Conditions for grant of an interlocutory injunction: prima facie case, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience where in doubt
  • Definition of a prima facie case in civil applications

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 12th September 2023 allowed in terms of Prayer No. 3 (temporary injunction pending hearing and determination of the suit)
  2. 2.Costs to abide the outcome of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActNo. 3 of 2012

Cases cited (2)

  • Giella –vs- Casman Brown & Co. Ltd
    [1973] EA 358
  • Mrao – vs- First American Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 Others
    [2003] KLR 125
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction over land disputes; application under the Court's injunction powers (no specific provision cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mathiomi Holdings Limited v Mathiomi House Limited & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 005 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6005 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6005/eng@2024-09-20

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