Ekaterra Tea Kenya PLC v Chepkwony & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E021 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6215 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court let Unilever Tea stay on its Kericho land but stopped short of a full injunction, ordering both sides to keep things exactly as they were.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with probability of success
The Court found the Applicant had demonstrated long occupation and heavy investment in the suit properties, uncontested by the 1st Respondent, but declined final determination of title validity at interlocutory stage
The Court noted that both parties hold titles to the parcels in contention and that the validity of the titles could not be determined at the interlocutory stage. However, the Applicant's occupation since 1929 and 1969 and its investment in tea and tree planting were uncontroverted. Injunction being an equitable remedy, the Court considered conduct, proportionality and equality of arms, and opted to preserve the status quo rather than grant a full injunction.
Whether irreparable injury would be suffered absent an injunction
No evidence showed the 1st Respondent would suffer prejudice; equally he had shown no possession or activity on the contested parcel
The Court observed that the 1st Respondent had neither contested nor demonstrated that he would suffer irreparable injury or prejudice if interim orders issued. Further, no evidence was adduced of his possession or occupation of the contested parcel or of any economic or social activity carried out thereon. This weighed in favour of preserving the status quo pending full hearing.
Whether an interim injunction should issue
The Court declined a conventional injunction and instead issued a defined status quo order for preservation and case management
Relying on Mugah v Kunga and Practice Direction No. 28(k) under Gazette Notice No. 5178/2014, the Court held that status quo orders preserve the subject matter in land disputes. It defined the status quo as the Applicant remaining in occupation of LR 4098/2 (IR 3939) and LR 4433/5 as at filing of suit, with no interference by any party, until final determination.
Legal principles established
#- In land matters status quo orders should be issued to preserve the subject matter
- A registered title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership subject to challenge on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedural acquisition or corruption
Court orders
#- 1.An order of status quo to be maintained by all parties, the Plaintiff/Applicant remaining in occupation of LR 4098/2 (IR 3939) and LR 4433/5 as at the time of filing suit
- 2.No interference with parcel registration LR 4098/2 (IR 3939) and LR 4433/5
- 3.Status quo to be maintained until the matter is finally heard and determined
- 4.Costs of the application dated 5th December 2022 to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ekaterra Tea Kenya PLC v Chepkwony & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E021 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6215 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6215/eng@2024-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.