County Government of Kajiado v Tata Chemicals Magadi Ltd; National Land Commission & 3 others (Interested Parties); Tata Chemicals Magadi Ltd (Plaintiff to the Counterclaim); County Government of Kajiado & another (Defendant to the Counterclaim) (Environment & Land Case E043 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 202 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped Kajiado County from shutting down Tata Chemicals' Magadi operations over a Kshs. 358 million rates bill while the main dispute is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection on the basis of Section 6 Civil Procedure Act (sub-judice before the Court of Appeal) was competent
The preliminary objection failed because determining whether the rates issue is before the Court of Appeal would require ascertaining facts (perusing the Memorandum of Appeal), so it is not a pure point of law; no stay had been granted to halt discussion of the issue
The court applied the Mukisa Biscuit and Joho v Shahbal tests: a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law discernible on the pleadings. Since the Respondent's contention required perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 530 of 2019, it was not a pure point of law. Further, Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act concerns stays between courts, and no stay had been granted in the Court of Appeal, so the objection was misplaced and was disallowed.
Whether the Defendant/Applicant met the threshold for an interlocutory injunction
All three Giella conditions were satisfied: a prima facie case was established, irreparable loss not compensable by damages was demonstrated, and the balance of convenience favoured the Applicant
The court found the Applicant had shown its premises were forcibly closed without demonstrated legal basis and that closure would disrupt critical community services - a school, a Level Four hospital, a dam and boreholes - whose intrinsic value transcends financial quantification and which safeguard constitutional rights. Damages could not compensate such harm. The balance of convenience favoured the Applicant, since the County would still be paid rates once the Court of Appeal decided the pending appeal.
Costs of the application
Costs were not awarded to either party but made to abide the outcome of the main suit
Having allowed the application, the court nonetheless declined to award costs immediately, directing instead that costs of the application await the final determination of the main suit and counterclaim.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct; it cannot be raised where facts must be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised
- Jurisdiction is everything; a court without jurisdiction must down its tools at once
- The three Giella/Nguruman conditions for interlocutory injunctions are sequential, separate hurdles the applicant must surmount
Court orders
#- 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, an order restraining the Defendants/Respondents in the counterclaim, by themselves or their servants, agents or assigns, from trespassing, entering, remaining or closing, locking, blocking or in any other manner interfering with any of the Defendant/Applicant's premises, business operations, factories, gates and properties situated in Magadi, in the County of Kajiado
- 2.Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over the counterclaim; application brought under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kajiado v Tata Chemicals Magadi Ltd; National Land Commission & 3 others (Interested Parties); Tata Chemicals Magadi Ltd (Plaintiff to the Counterclaim); County Government of Kajiado & another (Defendant to the Counterclaim) (Environment & Land Case E043 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 202 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 17th January 2024 within the pending suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/202/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.