Sampadoria Investments Limited v National Water Harvesting & Storage Authority & 3 others (Civil Suit E023 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 7409 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court protected an investor's Mombasa land title for now, but refused to stop corruption investigations before a full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - the Plaintiff produced a registered title deed while the 1st Defendant asserted competing ownership, and the Defendants' actions threatened alienation of the suit property
The court weighed the rival claims without making final findings: the Plaintiff held a title deed over LR MN/I/10401 and the 1st Defendant claimed the parcel was fraudulently hived off its L-shaped Shanzu parcel. On the material presented, the Plaintiff demonstrated an apparently infringed right calling for explanation or rebuttal, satisfying the prima facie case threshold in Giella and Mrao.
Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages
Yes - the property is at risk of alienation and the Applicant's rights could not adequately be compensated in damages
Applying Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai, the court held that irreparable injury is one that cannot be adequately compensated in damages. The Plaintiff demonstrated through ownership documentation that its rights to the suit property were at risk, and the court found damages an inadequate remedy, satisfying the second Giella condition.
Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction
Yes - there was a lower risk of injustice in granting the temporary injunction than in refusing it, pending full trial
The court, guided by Pius Kipchirchir Kogo, Paul Gitonga Wanjau and Amir Suleiman v Amboseli Resort, held that it had not interrogated all documents or the 1st Defendant's annexures, which would only be possible at trial, so preservation of the suit property was necessary and the balance of convenience tilted towards maintaining the status quo.
Whether permanent injunction orders could issue at the interlocutory stage
No - permanent injunctions are granted only after full hearing; special circumstances justifying interlocutory grant were absent
Distinguishing prohibitory from mandatory/permanent injunctions per Shepherd Homes v Sandham and Locabail, and applying Kenya Breweries v Washington Okeyo and Joseph Kaloki v Nancy Atieno Ouma, the court held such relief requires special circumstances or a clear case. With competing claims requiring further interrogation, the court declined the permanent injunctive prayers as premature.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella conditions for an interlocutory injunction must all be satisfied sequentially, without leap-frogging
- A permanent (mandatory) injunction will not normally be granted on an interlocutory application absent special circumstances, a clear case, or an attempt by the Defendant to steal a march
- On an interlocutory injunction application, the court makes no final findings of contested fact but weighs the relative strength of the parties' cases
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 25th March, 2024 be and is hereby found to have merit and is allowed as per the Court's discretion and for preservation of the suit property, save for prayers numbers (c) and (e) which seek mandatory permanent injunctive orders at the interlocutory stage
- 2.Pending hearing and determination of the suit, an order of temporary injunction issued restraining the Defendants, their officers, employees, assigns and agents from revoking the Plaintiff's title to LR No. MN/I/10401 situate at Shanzu in Mombasa County and from in any manner interfering with the Plaintiff's ownership and use of the said property
- 3.Mention on 2nd December, 2024 for a Pre-Trial conference pursuant to Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, thereafter a full trial hearing fixed for 18th February, 2025
- 4.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21) and 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, "Sampadoria Investments Limited v National Water Harvesting & Storage Authority & 3 others (Civil Suit E023 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 7409 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Suit No E023 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/7409/eng@2024-11-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.