Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2025] KEELC 108 (KLR)

Manyara v Mwiti & another (Environment and Land Appeal E01 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 108 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 January 2025
OMOguttu Mboya
3,559 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused a landowner's injunction because he claimed a different plot than the one in his original case, proving consistency in pleadings matters.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on the Appellant/Applicant's notice of motion dated 18th January 2024, seeking temporary injunctions restraining the Respondents from entering upon, remaining on, or interfering with Plot No. Kambi Ya Juu/241 pending the hearing of the application and of the appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates' Court. The application was supported by the Applicant's affidavit and canvassed by written submissions. The Respondents opposed it, contending that the application was misconceived and an abuse of process because the Applicant's case in the lower court concerned Plot No. 242 Kambi Ya Juu, not Plot No. 241, and that he had not met the conditions for injunctive relief. The court framed two issues: whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success, and whether he demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable loss. On the first issue, the court applied the definitions of a prima facie case in Mrao Ltd v First American Bank and Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen. It noted that the trial court had found the disputed ground to be Plot No. 241 belonging to the Respondents and that the Applicant had claimed Plot No. 242. Seeking an injunction over Plot No. 241 therefore departed from the Applicant's pleadings, contrary to the doctrine against departure and Order 2 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and showed lack of bona fides. On the second issue, applying Vivo Energy Ltd v Maloba Petrol Station, the court held that no irreparable loss was proved. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success in respect of Plot No. 241 Kambi Ya Juu.

Holding

The Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case; his claim concerned Plot No. 242, not Plot No. 241, and seeking orders over Plot 241 departed from his pleadings in the subordinate court.

Reasoning

The court adopted the definitions of a prima facie case in Mrao Ltd v First American Bank and Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen. The trial court had found the disputed ground to be Plot No. 241 belonging to the Respondents and that the Applicant claimed Plot No. 242. Since the Applicant now sought an injunction over Plot No. 241, his application was a departure from his pleadings, breaching the doctrine against departure and Order 2 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and demonstrated lack of bona fides.

p. 6
02

Whether the Applicant demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable loss if the orders sought were not granted.

Holding

The Applicant did not prove any likelihood of irreparable loss, harm or damage.

Reasoning

Relying on Vivo Energy Limited v Maloba Petrol Station, the court noted that irreparable injury must be actual, substantial and demonstrable, and incapable of adequate compensation in damages. Having found that the Applicant's claim related to Plot No. 242 and not Plot No. 241, the court held he could not satisfactorily prove how actions on Plot No. 241 would occasion him irreparable loss.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot raise a different or fresh case without due amendment properly made.
  • An applicant for a temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success and demonstrate that irreparable loss would occur if the injunction is not granted.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application dated 18th January, 2024 be and is hereby dismissed.
  2. 2.Costs of the Application be and hereby awarded to the Respondents.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 40 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 42 Rule 6 (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 2 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21, Laws of KenyaSections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63(e)

Cases cited (7)

  • RWW VS EKW
    [2019] eKLR
  • JAMES WANGALWA & Another Vs Agnes Naliaka Chesito
    [2012] eKLR
  • Arun C. Sharma Vs Ashana Raikundalia t/a Rairundalia 7 Co. Advocates & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mrao Limited Vs First American Bank of Kenya Limited
    [2003] eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, Herman Philipus Steyn Also Known As Hermannus Phillipus Steyn & Hedda Steyn
    [2014] KECA 606 (KLR)
  • Dakianga Distributors Limited Vs Kenya Seeds Company Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Vivo Energy Limited vs Maloba Petrol Station & Others
    [2015] eKLR
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 Rule 1; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya (appellate jurisdiction over the Magistrates' Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Manyara v Mwiti & another (Environment and Land Appeal E01 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/108/eng@2025-01-22

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