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 AllowedNot stated in the judgment (application dated 19th December, 2023)· [2024] KEELC 6414 (KLR)

Rimberia v Miriti (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E016 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6414 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 October 2024
CYC.K Yano
2,601 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Meru court protected a land buyer who occupied and developed his plot since 2006, stopping the registered owner from selling or interfering with it until the main case is decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff/applicant moved the court by notice of motion dated 19th December 2023 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from damaging, disposing of, selling, leasing or interfering with his use and occupation of land parcel Nyayo Sirimon Scheme/540 pending the hearing of the suit. He relied on a sale agreement of 2nd November 2006 for purchase of the plot at Kshs. 180,000/=, acknowledgement receipts, and photographs showing that he and his children have been in occupation and development of the land since 2006. He feared eviction and resale. The defendant opposed the application through a replying affidavit sworn 8th July 2024, asserting she is the legitimate registered owner having obtained a title deed on 9th August 2016, that she never sold the land to the plaintiff, that the sale agreement and receipts were forgeries, and that her son occupies and farms the land. She also alleged the plaintiff had earlier obtained orders in Meru ELC E002 of 2020 (OS) to fraudulently change ownership. Only the plaintiff filed submissions. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles as restated in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, and defining irreparable injury and balance of convenience per Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai, the court found the applicant had established a prima facie case, demonstrated potential irreparable harm, and that the lower risk of injustice lay in granting the injunction to preserve the status quo. The application was allowed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success

Holding

The court found a prima facie case on the sale agreement, acknowledgement receipts, photographs of development and the applicant's occupation since 2006

Reasoning

The applicant produced a sale agreement dated 2006, acknowledgement receipts and photographs of development, and deposed that he had been in use and occupation of the land with his children since 2006. The respondent did not seriously rebut possession after purchase, and the court was satisfied a legal right apparently infringed had been shown, meeting the Mrao Ltd test.

p. 4
02

Whether the balance of convenience and risk of injustice favoured granting the injunction

Holding

The court held there was a lower risk of injustice in granting the injunction and that status quo should be maintained

Reasoning

Applying Amir Suleiman v Amboseli Resort Ltd, the court opted for the lower risk of injustice. The respondent admitted registration had changed to the applicant's name (which she alleged was via illegally obtained orders), and the court found the property might be in danger of being dealt with as apprehended, making maintenance of status quo appropriate.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The conditions for a temporary injunction are establishment of a prima facie case, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and balance of convenience, applied as sequential hurdles.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their proxies, servants, agents and/or employees from damaging, destroying, disposing, selling, leasing, letting and/or in any other manner interfering with the plaintiff/applicant's use and occupation of land parcel Nyayo Sirimon Scheme/540 until this suit is heard and determined
  2. 2.Each party to bear his/her own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B & 3A
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 40 & Order 51
  • Land Registration Act 2012Section 68
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 40

Cases cited (7)

  • Giella Vs Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
  • Mrao Ltd Vs First American Bank of Kenya
    (2003) eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited versus Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others
    CA No.77 of 2012 (2014) eKLR
  • Pius Kipchirchir Kogo Vs Frank Kimeli Tenai
    (2018) eKLR
  • Paul Gitonga Wanjau Vs Gathuthis Tea Factory Company Ltd & 2 others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Amir Suleiman Vs Amboseli Resort Limited
    [2004] eKLR
  • Robert Mugo Wa Karanja Vs Ecobank (Kenya) Limited & Another
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21); Order 40 & 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Section 68 of the Land Registration Act 2012

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rimberia v Miriti (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E016 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6414 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 19th December, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6414/eng@2024-10-03

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