[2020] KEELC 3583 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3583 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case that the suit land is public land reserved as a beach access road and that its allocation and subsequent dealings were irregular and potentially fraudulent. The absence of any response or opposition from the 1st defendant left the plaintiff's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3583 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission; Defendant: Galerius Investment Ltd; Defendant: Jabu Salim; Defendant: Zablon Angwata; Defendant: Wilson Gachanja; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 88 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Application for injunction allowed.
Legal Topics
Public Land Allocation, Injunctive Relief, Fraudulent Land Title
Source Language
en
Land and Property Public Land Allocation Injunctive Relief Fraudulent Land Title

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission

Plaintiff

Galerius Investment Ltd

Defendant

Jabu Salim

Defendant

Zablon Angwata

Defendant

Wilson Gachanja

Defendant

Chief Land Registrar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the suit land is public land reserved as a beach access road.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant should be restrained from dealing with or constructing on the suit land pending determination of the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case that the suit land is public land reserved as a beach access road and that its allocation and subsequent dealings were irregular and potentially fraudulent. The absence of any response or opposition from the 1st defendant left the plaintiff's evidence uncontroverted. The court held that if the injunction was not granted, there was a risk of further dealings or construction on the land, which could defeat the purpose of the suit. The balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo until the suit is heard and determined. Accordingly, the court granted the orders of injunction and inhibition as sought by the...

Court Disposition

Application for injunction allowed.

Orders

  • An order of injunction is issued restraining the 1st defendant from selling, charging, leasing, sub-dividing, or otherwise dealing with the suit land.
  • An order of inhibition is issued restricting the registration of any disposition in the register of the suit land.