Hybrid Kenya Planters Limited & another v Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops (Environment and Land Case E027 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7311 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kericho's Environment and Land Court refused to stop a landlord from dealing with 602 leased acres because the tenants couldn't prove their case or irreparable harm.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction
They did not; the lease exists and was accepted, but key issues (surrender letter, service of distress notices, ownership of auctioned goods) are disputed and must await trial
The court accepted the undisputed existence of the letter of offer, payment of USD 36,000 deposit, the taking of possession and the auction. However, the disputed questions - whether the 2nd August 2024 surrender letter was written by the 1st Plaintiff, whether statutory notices under the Distress for Rent Act were served, and ownership of the auctioned items - cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence. Without apparent infringement of a right, no prima facie case was made out.
Whether the Applicants demonstrated irreparable injury
They did not; apprehension that the land will be leased to third parties is speculative and loss of machinery/income is quantifiable
Applying Nguruman and Kogo, the court held the burden is on the applicant to show actual, substantial and demonstrable injury not compensable by damages. The Applicants admitted they are no longer in possession; their apprehension of re-letting is speculative, and the claimed loss of farm machinery and coffee income is capable of being measured and compensated by damages.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It does not tilt in favour of the Plaintiffs; the Defendant is the registered owner in possession
Having failed on the first two limbs, the court proceeded to balance of convenience. The Defendant, as registered owner of LR 9848/1 and 9849 and now in possession, would suffer greater inconvenience if an injunction issued, whereas the Plaintiffs are already out of possession. The court therefore declined to preserve a status quo favouring the Plaintiffs.
Whether the release of motor vehicles, machinery and equipment could be ordered at the interlocutory stage
No; the relief is a substantive prayer in the Plaint and must await trial
The court noted that the same relief sought in the application appears as prayer (b) in the Plaint. Determining whether the Defendant holds the items and should return them would entail determining the suit prematurely, particularly where the Defendant denies possession of the listed items. The question was deferred to the full hearing.
Legal principles established
#- The conditions for grant of an interlocutory injunction are a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, balance of convenience (Giella v Cassman Brown)
- Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
- A prayer that mirrors a substantive prayer in the plaint cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs/Applicants' Notice of Motion application dated 5th November 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Defendant/Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63(c) & (e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (interlocutory application in an original suit)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hybrid Kenya Planters Limited & another v Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops (Environment and Land Case E027 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7311 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Environment and Land Case at Kericho (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7311/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.