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 the judgment· [2025] KEELC 3257 (KLR)

Jojomera & another v Kauli (Land Case E013 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3257 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 April 2025
LNL.L Naikuni
3,425 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 Kwale land owner's injunction bid failed because photos and police records didn't actually prove the property destruction he alleged.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kwale (Hon. L.L Naikuni, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 13th May 2024 by the Defendant, Edward Shida Kauli, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiffs from interfering with, destroying beacons on, burning buildings and farmlands on the suit property (Samburu/Kigombero Area Matopeni, Kwale County), and an order for maintenance of the status quo established by the court's orders of 31st July 2023, with enforcement by the OCS Samburu police station. The application was brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 22, 40 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Plaintiffs, through the 1st Plaintiff's replying affidavit, denied the alleged destruction, asserting they had maintained the status quo and accusing the Defendant of contempt, including constructing houses and placing beacons contrary to the orders. The court framed three issues: whether the threshold for temporary injunction was met, entitlement to reliefs, and costs. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman, the court held the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case: the photographs were unclear, the OB numbers did not disclose the nature of the reports, and the minutes related to an unrelated data centre meeting. Since the conditions are sequential hurdles, failure of the first ended the inquiry. However, the status quo orders of 31st July 2023 remain in place pending the main suit, with a warning that breach attracts contempt. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and directions were given for a pre-trial conference on 17th June 2025 and hearing on 22nd October 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Defendant established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction

Holding

No - the photographic evidence and OB numbers were insufficient to prove the alleged destruction by the Plaintiffs

Reasoning

The court examined the photographs and found they did not clearly depict burnt crops or destroyed beacons. The OB numbers only showed a report was made but not its content. Minutes referred to concerned a public participation meeting for a data centre, not consent to land sale. Allegations unsupported by sufficient evidence cannot found injunctive relief.

p. 6
02

Whether the injunction conditions were satisfied sequentially

Holding

Failure of the prima facie case limb meant the remaining limbs need not be considered

Reasoning

Applying Nguruman and Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd v Afraha Education Society, the court held the conditions are separate, distinct and logical hurdles to be surmounted sequentially; once the prima facie case failed, irreparable injury and balance of convenience fell away.

p. 6
03

Costs

Holding

Each party to bear own costs despite the outcome, in the interest of justice

Reasoning

Costs are discretionary; the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides costs follow the event. Although the Plaintiffs partly proved their case, the court in the interest of justice directed each party to bear its own costs of the application.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • The three Giella conditions for an interlocutory injunction are sequential hurdles; failure of one ends the inquiry
  • Courts decide interlocutory applications on facts and evidence, not on the emotional state of litigants
  • He who alleges must prove

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the Notice of Motion application dated 13th May 2024 partly succeeds on only one limb
  2. 2.That the status quo orders issued on 31st July 2023 for preserving the suit property remain in place pending hearing and determination of the main suit
  3. 3.That there shall be a mention on 17th June, 2025 for a Pre-Trial Conference pursuant to Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and a hearing date on 22nd October, 2025 by virtual means
  4. 4.That each party shall bear its costs of the application
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21; Order 22 Rule 22, Order 40 Rule 7 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jojomera & another v Kauli (Land Case E013 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3257 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3257/eng@2025-04-02

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