Jihan Freighters Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation (Environment & Land Petition E013 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6508 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Mombasa ordered Kenya Railways to stop blocking a tenant's access to leased premises while the main case continues.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petitioner established a prima facie case
Yes — tenancy and eviction were undisputed; only the manner of eviction was in dispute, so a prima facie case was established.
The court found it undisputed that the petitioner was a tenant of the respondent and that it no longer occupied the premises. The disputed fact was whether the petitioner was forced out or vacated voluntarily. On that material, a tribunal properly directing itself would conclude there is an apparent legal right infringed, calling for explanation or rebuttal, satisfying the Mrao standard for a prima facie case.
Whether irreparable injury would be suffered absent the injunction
Yes — the eviction had paralyzed the petitioner's operations and impacted its finances and employees; the ongoing injury was not adequately compensable and the respondent had not restored the petitioner despite interim orders.
The petitioner had already been evicted and its operations paralyzed. Although a temporary injunction had been granted on 14th November 2023 and extended twice, the respondent had not restored the petitioner to the premises. The continuing injury would negatively and greatly impact employees and could not be adequately compensated, satisfying the second Giella limb.
Where the balance of convenience lies
In favour of the petitioner — the suit premises appeared idle, so continued exclusion made no economic sense and merely increased damages the respondent and the public might have to pay.
The court noted that damages could compensate the petitioner if it succeeded, and that from affidavits in a pending application there was no activity on the suit property. Keeping the premises idle while inconveniencing the petitioner served no economic purpose; granting the injunction would reduce the damages the respondent, and by extension the public, might be condemned to pay should the petition succeed.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella v Cassman Brown conditions for an interlocutory injunction are separate, distinct and sequential hurdles the applicant must surmount.
- Costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless otherwise ordered for good reasons.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 6th November 2023 is allowed in terms of prayer (3) — an injunction restraining the respondent, its agents, servants or workmen from interfering with or preventing the petitioner's access, occupation and operations at the Kenya Railways Goodsshed pending hearing and determination of the Petition
- 2.Costs to be borne by the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit property (leasehold premises at Mombasa Railway Station); interlocutory injunction application in a pending petition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jihan Freighters Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation (Environment & Land Petition E013 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6508 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of motion dated 6th November 2023 (Petition, ELC Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6508/eng@2024-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.