[2021] KEELC 846 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The evidence before the lower court did not clearly indicate which party was responsible for the dispute regarding access to the suit land and monitoring...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 846 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kitao Ole Rupante Parkinaro; Respondent: Kizamiz Enterprises Limited; Plaintiff: Kitao Ole Rupante Parkinaro; Defendant: Kizamiz Enterprises Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E010 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Appeal Against Interlocutory Injunction Refusal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- JE Gicheru
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Burden of Proof, Lease Disputes, Prima Facie Case
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kitao Ole Rupante Parkinaro
Appellant
Kizamiz Enterprises Limited
Respondent
Kitao Ole Rupante Parkinaro
Plaintiff
Kizamiz Enterprises Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Appeal Against Interlocutory Injunction Refusal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the application for injunction dated 8th March, 2021.
- 2 Whether the appellant established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of an injunction.
- 3 Whether the burden of proof was discharged by the appellant in the context of the lease dispute.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success as required for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The evidence before the lower court did not clearly indicate which party was responsible for the dispute regarding access to the suit land and monitoring of quarrying activities. The burden of proof was on the appellant to demonstrate that he was not at fault and that the respondent had breached the lease agreement. The appellant did not discharge this burden, and therefore, the learned Magistrate was correct in dismissing the application for injunction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent, and the...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- The suit shall proceed before the same court to conclusion unless withdrawn or otherwise concluded.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAJIADO
ELC APPEAL NO. E010 OF 2021
KITAO OLE RUPANTE PARKINARO...............................APPELLANT
VERSUS
KIZAMIZ ENTERPRISES LIMITED..............................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal of the whole ruling and order of the Honourable Kahuya I.M. (PM) dated 31st March, 2021)
BETWEEN
KITAO OLE RUPANTE PARKINARO..................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KIZAMIZ ENTERPRISES LIMITED...............................DEFENDANT
RULING
(1) This appeal seeks to set aside the ruling of the Lower Court dated 31st March, 2021. It also seeks for costs.
(2) In the ruling of 31st March, 2021, the learned Magistrate dismissed an application for injunction filed by the appellant and dated 8th March, 2021.
(3) In the application of 8th March, 2021, the Appellant had sought to restrain the Respondent from digging and carrying away building stones from LR. NO. KAJIADO/KITENGELA/30255. The grounds for seeking the injunctive orders were that the Respondents had breached their agreement by chasing away the Appellants agents from the suit land. As a result they could not monitor the quantity of materials taken from the land yet this was necessary to determine how much money would be paid to the Appellant as per the lease agreement of 20/6/2020.
(4) The Respondent in his replying affidavit dated 24th March, 2021 denied chasing away the Appellants agents and blamed the Appellant for being too busy to attend the quarrying and harassing the Respondents workers.
(5) After considering the application in its entirety, the learned Magistrate found that the appellant had not made out a prima facie case with a probability of success and dismissed the entire application with costs.
(6) In addition to the memorandum of appeal, there is an application dated 7/4/2021 seeking a stay of execution of the orders and ruling dated 31st March, 2021.
The said application is supported by an affidavit with six (6) annexures which include a lease dated 20/6/2020, acknowledgement receipt and correspondence between the parties.
(7) The application by the appellant is opposed by the respondent who has sworn a replying affidavit.
(8) I consider that by deciding the entire appeal, the application dated 7/4/2021 will be rendered superfluous.
(9) I have carefully considered the entire record including the memorandum of appeal, the undisputed facts of the case, the record of the lower court and the submissions by learned counsel for the parties dated 16th June, 2021 and 5th July 2021.
I find that the only question to be decided in this appeal is whether the learned Magistrate can be faulted for dismissing the Appellants application for injunction.
(10) I find that the learned trial Magistrate was right to dismiss the application for injunction dated 8th March, 2021 because the Appellant who was the applicant then did not establish a prima facie case with a probability of success.
From the evidence available to the learned Magistrate, it was not yet clear at that stage which party was to blame for misunderstanding that had arisen. Yet the burden of proof was on the Appellant to prove that he was not at fault.
He did not discharge this burden to qualify for the order of injunction.
(11) I dismiss the appeal with costs to the Respondents and direct that the suit proceeds before the same Court to conclusion, unless it is withdrawn or otherwise concluded.
Dated signed and delivered virtually at Kajiado this 17th day of November, 2021.
M.N. GICHERU
JUDGE