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 excerpt (Petition with Notice of Motion dated 27/12/2023)· [2024] KEELC 6654 (KLR)

Karanja & 14 others v National Land Commission & 6 others (Environment & Land Petition E002 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6654 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 October 2024
GKG K Kemei
2,171 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 27/12/2023 by 15 Petitioners/Applicants, registered proprietors of parcels within Ruiru Kiu Block 2 (formerly Githunguri Ranching), who sought interim and conservatory orders restraining the Respondents from continuing road construction through their properties pending hearing of their Petition. They alleged the Government was acquiring interests in their land without adherence to Article 40(3) of the Constitution and Part VIII of the Land Act, and without public participation or the procedure for compulsory acquisition. The 4th Respondent, through its director Mr Mburu Mungai, opposed, denying it was the contractor and claiming it was wrongly sued; the remaining Respondents did not oppose, and only the 1st Respondent filed submissions. The court, applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles as restated in Nguruman and the conservatory-order criteria in CREAW, found the Applicants' ownership uncontroverted on title deeds, established a prima facie case; that irreparable injury would follow given residential homes and properties charged to third parties; and that the balance of convenience favoured preservation. The court allowed the application in terms of prayers e and g only, granting a conservatory order preserving the listed properties and maintaining the status quo by restraining further road construction pending determination of the Petition, with costs to the Applicants. Discovery, police-enforcement and inhibition prayers were not granted.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case

Holding

Yes - their title deeds were uncontroverted on the record

Reasoning

The Applicants averred they stand to lose proprietary rights over the suit properties if the Respondents' actions are not stopped. They attached identification cards, title deeds and photographs of the impugned project. The court noted the averments were not controverted by any Respondent and therefore found a prima facie case established.

p. 6
02

Whether irreparable injury would be occasioned absent an injunction

Holding

Yes - some properties are residences and others are charged to third parties

Reasoning

Relying on Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai, the court held irreparable injury is that which cannot be adequately compensated in damages. Since some suit properties comprise residential homes and others are charged to secure third-party interests, proceeding with the project would give the Applicants sufficient basis to claim irreparable loss.

p. 6
03

Whether the triple requirements for conservatory orders were met

Holding

Yes - the application was allowed in terms of prayers e and g

Reasoning

The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles as reiterated in Nguruman, treating the conditions as sequential hurdles. Finding the prima facie case and irreparable injury limbs satisfied, it concluded the Applicants had satisfied the triple requirements and granted the conservatory order preserving the properties and maintaining the status quo pending the Petition.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant seeking conservatory orders must demonstrate a prima facie case with probability of success and that violation will continue unless the order is granted
  • Temporary injunction requires establishment of a prima facie case, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and if in doubt, balance of convenience

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application is allowed in terms of prayers e and g only
  2. 2.A conservatory order preserving the Petitioners' properties as listed and maintaining the status quo, restraining and/or prohibiting any further construction and/or development of the road on the said properties, granted pending hearing and determination of the Petition
  3. 3.Costs awarded in favour of the Applicants
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rules 1 & 4, Order 42 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karanja & 14 others v National Land Commission & 6 others (Environment & Land Petition E002 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6654 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in excerpt (Petition with Notice of Motion dated 27/12/2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6654/eng@2024-10-09

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