[2019] KEELC 113 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 113 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to warrant the discharge or variation of the interlocutory injunction previously granted to the plaintiff. The evidence presented, including photographs, did not establish that the plaintiff had committed acts of waste or destruction after the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 113 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited; Defendant: Kibotu Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 107 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Injunction and Discharge of Injunction
Outcome
Defendant's application for discharge of injunction and conservatory orders dismissed; plaintiff's injunction confirmed pending trial.
Legal Topics
Wayleave Rights, Compulsory Acquisition, Injunctions, Compensation for Land Use, Public Infrastructure Projects
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Wayleave Rights Compulsory Acquisition Injunctions Compensation for Land Use Public Infrastructure Projects

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited

Plaintiff

Kibotu Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Court Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Injunction and Discharge of Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory injunction granted to the plaintiff should be discharged or varied due to alleged misrepresentation and waste of land.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has enforceable rights to enter and use the defendant's land for construction of power lines prior to compensation.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to conservatory orders restraining the plaintiff from further entry and alleged destruction of property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to warrant the discharge or variation of the interlocutory injunction previously granted to the plaintiff. The evidence presented, including photographs, did not establish that the plaintiff had committed acts of waste or destruction after the injunction was issued, nor was there proof of material non-disclosure by the plaintiff. The court emphasized that interlocutory injunctions serve to preserve the subject matter pending trial and that any damages suffered by the defendant could be compensated monetarily if the counterclaim succeeds. The court also clarified that the plaintiff's entry onto the land for the...

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for discharge of injunction and conservatory orders dismissed; plaintiff's injunction confirmed pending trial.

Orders

  • The interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's construction works remains in force pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  • The plaintiff shall deposit Kshs. 5,159,448.00 in a joint interest-earning account in the names of the advocates for the parties within 30 days, failing which the injunction lapses.