Bomet Technical Institute Limited t/a Lomu Investments v Bomet University College & another (Environment and Land Case E014 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7121 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed the institute's injunction bid, finding money damages could compensate it, but froze all activity on the disputed land meanwhile.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case
Yes - the Applicant is the registered owner of LR No. Bomet Township/270 as evidenced by the Certificate of Lease and official search
The Applicant produced a Certificate of Lease showing registration of Lomu Investments as owner on 15th December 2003 and issuance of the Certificate of Lease in 2017. Although the 1st Defendant alleged the registration was fraudulently obtained and that ownership was contested in prior Kericho litigation, on the documents the Applicant is the registered owner, which suffices at this stage for a prima facie case.
Whether the Applicant will suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages
No - the Applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable damage
The Applicant relied on its long occupation and the threat of irreversible alteration of land, but did not demonstrate injury that is actual, substantial and demonstrable or incapable of measurement in damages. Mere apprehension of continued construction and loss of value fell short of the Nguruman threshold.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It does not tilt in favour of the Applicant
Both parties are challenging the legality of the title documents held by each other and the extent of land held. Given this mutual contest over title and boundaries, and the 1st Defendant's claim that the trespass activities occur on its own parcel, the Court could not say the inconvenience to the Applicant outweighed that to the Defendant.
Character of grounds of opposition
The document filed as grounds of opposition was not properly such, as grounds of opposition must address questions of law, not fact
The Court observed that the 1st Defendant's document contained extensive factual assertions, which is impermissible; grounds of opposition are confined to points of law in answer to an application.
Legal principles established
#- The conditions for grant of an interlocutory injunction are a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience
- A prima facie case is one in which a right has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party
- A registered proprietor may establish a prima facie case by producing a certificate of title
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 3rd March 2025 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The status quo obtaining as at the date of the ruling shall be maintained pending the hearing and determination of this suit
- 3.Parties are prohibited from constructing, charging and/or transferring land parcel No. Bomet Township/270 and/or doing all and any activities whose effect shall be to alter the physical or legal status of the suit land pending the hearing and determination of this suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A & 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rule 1 & Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bomet Technical Institute Limited t/a Lomu Investments v Bomet University College & another (Environment and Land Case E014 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7121 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (ELC suit at Kericho; Notice of Motion dated 3rd March 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7121/eng@2025-10-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.