[2024] KEELC 7575 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The plaintiff's business involves the storage and sale of motorcycles, and demolition of the boundary wall would expose the premises to vandalism and theft, causing irreparable harm. The defendants did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 7575 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mogo Auto Ltd; Defendant: Nanga Co Ltd; Defendant: Victor Kiprono Kipruto; Defendant: Tsavo City Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case E344 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Boundary Disputes, Irreparable Harm, Land Ownership, Construction Projects
- 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
Mogo Auto Ltd
Plaintiff
Nanga Co Ltd
Defendant
Victor Kiprono Kipruto
Defendant
Tsavo City Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the boundary wall separating the plaintiff's property from the adjacent parcel.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and damage if the injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The plaintiff's business involves the storage and sale of motorcycles, and demolition of the boundary wall would expose the premises to vandalism and theft, causing irreparable harm. The defendants did not oppose the application. The court exercised its discretion to grant the injunction, finding the application merited. The injunctive orders restraining the defendants from demolishing the boundary wall are allowed and will remain in force for one year.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- A temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants from demolishing the boundary wall separating the plaintiff's property LR No. 209/9752 and the adjacent parcel for a period of one year.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Mogo Auto Ltd v Nanga Co Ltd & 2 others (Land Case E344 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 7575 (KLR) (13 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 7575 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Land Case E344 of 2024
LN Mbugua, J
November 13, 2024
Between
Mogo Auto Ltd
Plaintiff
and
Nanga Co Ltd
1st Defendant
Victor Kiprono Kipruto
2nd Defendant
Tsavo City Limited
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. Before me is the plaintiff’s application dated 21. 8.2024 seeking a temporary order of injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the boundary wall separating the plaintiff’s property LR No. 209 / 9752 along Lang’ata road and the adjacent parcel where the defendants are engaged in construction of a project known as JKAC Gardens Construction Project. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of Dellah Moraa Onyinkwa who is the legal manager of the plaintiff. She avers that the plaintiff has a sublease on parcel LR 209/9752 where they carry on their business relating to storage and sale of mortal cycles. That adjacent to this land, the defendants are carrying on a construction project but vide a letter dated 20. 8.2024 they communicated their intention to demolish the boundary wall between the two parcels of land. The plaintiffs contend that they are likely to suffer irreparable loss and damages as the plaintiff’s property will be exposed to vandalism and theft.
2. The application was served but no responses have been filed.
3. An injunction like the one sought by the applicant is an equitable remedy and the court hearing the application has discretion in making a decision on whether or not to grant such an injunction application. See – Paul Gitonga Wanjau vs Gathuthi Tea Factory Limited and 2 Others 2016 eKLR. In the case at hand, the plaintiffs have indicated that their business entails sale of motor cycles as well as storage facilities, thus the demolition of the wall would certainly expose and affect their business. In the circumstances I find that the application is merited and the injunctive orders sought are hereby allowed but shall remain in force for a period of one year.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 13ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:Omuya holding brief Mr. Nyambengera for PlaintiffCourt Assistant: Vena