Fahrenheit Energy Limited v Boit & another (Environment & Land Case E068 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3711 (KLR)

The supporting affidavit depicted the Defendants as trespassers while omitting the succession proceedings and the High Court orders under which they were subdividing the land. The director swore the affidavit on the company's behalf, and as the directing mind and majority shareholder his knowledge is the company's knowledge. As registered owner the company ought also to have conducted due diligence and could not claim ignorance of the land's history. The withheld information was so crucial that the court would not in good conscience have issued the injunction had it been disclosed.

The two affidavits of service sworn by the same process server differed on the date of service, and one was withdrawn only after the 1st Applicant tabled evidence that she was in Uganda. The affidavits omitted the time and manner of service required in the prescribed form. There was no explanation why the 2nd Defendant was not served personally, and no evidence of failed attempts justifying substituted service on an adult family member as a last resort. The injunction orders were therefore issued in default upon allegedly defective service.

The court clarified that the jurisdiction under Order 40 Rule 7 is not conditional on the dissatisfied party demonstrating a defence on the merits. Where concealment of material facts or defective service is established, the injunction may be discharged irrespective of whether the underlying application was opposed. Since non-disclosure was established and service successfully challenged, the impugned orders could not stand.