Fahrenheit Energy Limited v Boit & another (Environment and Land Case E068 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8188 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused a landowner's injunction because the company hid earlier succession court orders favouring its opponents, but froze all land dealings pending trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
No. Although the Plaintiff is the registered owner, the Defendants hold in-force orders from the succession court in cause E026 of 2022, and the Plaintiff's director concealed those prior proceedings from the court, engaging the clean hands doctrine.
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found the land was inherited from the estate of the late Geoffrey Sila Kibet Boit and the Defendants claim through a confirmed grant in the succession cause. The Plaintiff did not deny those orders, and the objection filed by its director had been dismissed. Non-disclosure of the prior proceedings disentitled the Plaintiff to equitable relief, so no prima facie case was established and the Defendants' entry could not be trespass.
Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss not compensable in damages
No. Any damage to the Plaintiff could be quantified in damages, while restraining the Defendants would prejudice beneficiaries holding court orders in their favour.
The court reasoned that the Defendants, as beneficiaries of the late Richard Kipchumba Boit with in-force succession orders, would be prejudiced if restrained from asserting their lawful interest. The Plaintiff's possession and development since 2013 did not outweigh this, and any loss to the Plaintiff was compensable in damages with eviction possible if it succeeded at trial.
Whether an order of inhibition should issue against the Chief Land Registrar
Yes. Given the contested ownership and parallel probate revocation proceedings, inhibition was warranted to preserve the substratum of the suit and prevent dealings by either side pending determination.
The suit properties are subject both to this suit and to pending revocation proceedings in the probate court. The Defendants hold a certificate of confirmation of grant while the Plaintiff holds titles, and the subdivided parcels could be sold or transferred to third parties. To prevent prejudice to either party and preserve the suit's subject matter, the court issued inhibition restraining any registration on the instruction or application of any party.
Legal principles established
#- An injunction is an equitable remedy; an applicant must come with clean hands and a court may refuse an injunction where the applicant concealed material facts
- At the interlocutory stage the court is not obliged to resolve contested matters of fact on untested affidavit evidence
Court orders
#- 1.An order of inhibition restraining the Chief Land Registrar from registration of any disposition or making of entries, on the instruction or application of any of the parties or anyone acting under them, in the registers of the suit properties (Titles IR. 145476 to IR. 145492) pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the Application shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land disputes; references to the Constitution and the Land Registration Act, 2012 (sections 24, 25, 26, 28(b))
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Fahrenheit Energy Limited v Boit & another (Environment and Land Case E068 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8188 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8188/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.