Mwania v Koronya & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E026 of 2022) [2025] KEMC 178 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a landowner's injunction bid because he produced a disputed agreement but no real evidence, and warned his suit may be in the wrong court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to orders of injunction as against the defendants as prayed for in the application
- 2.Who should bear costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
No - the disputed agreement, unresolved jurisdictional challenge and absence of any documentary or photographic evidence meant no prima facie case was established
The court noted the plaintiff did not respond to the defendants' claims that the land was unsurveyed/adjudication area and belonged to the 2nd defendant. The agreement relied on was highly disputed, and there was no evidence of settlement or encroachment. The 1st and 2nd defendants' response raised reasonable doubt as to the court's jurisdiction, so the Giella threshold was not met.
Effect of amending a supporting affidavit
An affidavit cannot be amended; an amended affidavit is defective, though the court declined to strike out the application on that basis
The court reviewed conflicting authority: some decisions hold an application supported by an amended affidavit is a nullity, while Aburili J held the defect does not invalidate the application since Order 51 Rule 1 does not mandate an affidavit. The court held the affidavit is defective but left the question of fatality open, proceeding to determine the application on its merits.
Whether the injunction sought was ancillary to the relief in the plaint
Yes - the court verified that the prayers in the application bore a relationship to the relief sought in the plaint
Relying on authorities including Dismas Oduor Owuor v Housing Finance Co. and State of Orissa v Madan Gopal Rungta, the court applied the principle that interim relief must be ancillary to the main relief. On perusing the plaint, it found the prayers sought in the application were consistent with the suit, so no variance arose.
Legal principles established
#- An affidavit cannot be amended; a party should file a further or supplementary affidavit instead
- An interlocutory injunction must be ancillary to and consistent with the substantive relief claimed in the plaint
- Without evidence there is no prima facie case; mere stories and averments do not suffice
- Whether an application supported by an amended affidavit becomes fatally defective remains debatable in the superior courts
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the application dated 26/10/2022
- 2.Plaintiff to bear the costs of the application
- 3.Advice to the plaintiff to consider whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Civil Procedure Act (sections 1A, 1B, 3A) and Order 40 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining defendants from entering, trespassing, fencing and preventing access to the suit plot pending hearing and determination of the suit
The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success; the response raised doubt as to jurisdiction and no evidence of encroachment or settlement was exhibited
Order directing the Officer Commanding Makindu Police Station to enforce compliance
Fell with the main prayer once the injunction was refused
Costs
The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the application
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In view of the foregoing, I find that the application dated 26/10/2022 is devoid of merit. For the reasons given hereinabove, it is my opinion that the plaintiff has failed to meet the threshold of granting a temporary injunction. Consequently, I proceed to dismiss the application. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the application.
This is not the kind of application in which stories would suffice. Without evidence, there is no prima facie case.
Bottom line is that an affidavit cannot be amended and when it is so amended, it becomes defective.
The foundation of an interlocutory application such as the instant one is the plaint.
I would advise the plaintiff to seriously consider whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to objections by 'the 2nd and 3rd defendants' although only the 1st and 2nd defendants filed a replying affidavit and submissions; the 3rd defendant's participation is not otherwise recorded
The court observes the 3rd defendant is a church sued in its own name and questions the propriety of that, but makes no order on it
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwania v Koronya & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E026 of 2022) [2025] KEMC 178 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Makindu PMCC (application dated 26/10/2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/178/eng@2025-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.