Losokwan Camp Limited v Maasai Mara Landowners Conservancy Limited & another (Environment & Land Case E013 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6593 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Narok court ordered conservancy landowners to stop blocking a tourism camp's access roads, protecting business access pending full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case
Yes. The plaintiff's occupation of the suit property since about 2007 was unchallenged and the defendants' operations commenced only recently, so an apparent legal right calling for rebuttal was shown.
The court applied Mrao Ltd v First American Bank definition of a prima facie case. The defendants did not dispute that the plaintiff had operated Losokwan Camp within Lemek Conservancy since 2007, nor did they deny acts of intimidation and harassment of the plaintiff's employees. The duration of occupation was unchallenged, establishing an apparently infringed legal right requiring explanation or rebuttal.
Whether the plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm not compensable by damages
Yes. Threats to the plaintiff's utilization of the suit property demonstrated irreparable loss; the defendants did not deny the harassment and intimidation, and bookings had been cancelled and tourists relocated.
Applying Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai on irreparable injury, the court noted the plaintiff's evidence of cancelled bookings and relocation of tourists to Mara Bella Camp due to the barriers. The defendants distanced themselves from the loss and never denied the intimidation of employees. The court found a threat to utilization of the suit properties demonstrating irreparable loss.
Where the balance of convenience lies
In favour of the plaintiff, since the inconvenience if the orders were withheld would be greater for the plaintiff than for the defendants.
Having found a prima facie case and irreparable harm, the court proceeded to the third Giella condition. It held that the inconvenience caused if the injunction were refused would be greater for the plaintiff, whose tourism business depends on access, than for the defendants, and accordingly granted the interlocutory relief with police supervision.
Legal principles established
#- The grant of a temporary injunction requires the applicant sequentially to establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and that the balance of convenience lies in its favour.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction, pending the hearing and determination of the suit, restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with the plaintiff's use of parcel Cis-Mara/Lemek/6541 in its tourism business, its lawful usage of the public access roads in Lemek conservancy and its free ingress and egress via the Elephant/Naserian, Losokwan, Ndagurugurieti and airstrip Mara River barriers and any other crossing points within Lemek Conservancy, Narok County
- 2.The orders to be enforced by and/or under the supervision of the Officer Commanding Police Division (OCPD) Mulot, Narok County
- 3.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1, 1A, 1B, 3, 3A & 63(c) and (e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 13 and 19(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Order 40 Rules 1(a), 2(a) & 10(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Losokwan Camp Limited v Maasai Mara Landowners Conservancy Limited & another (Environment & Land Case E013 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6593 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Narok ELC Case (notice of motion dated 21st June, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6593/eng@2024-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.