[2022] KEELC 15645 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants, having held a valid allotment letter since 1997, have demonstrated a legitimate claim to the suit property and thus established a prima facie case. The respondents did not deny ongoing survey works but argued the suit was premature due to the absence of the Nairobi City County as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 15645 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Chege Nganga; Plaintiff: James Mwangi Thuo; Plaintiff: David Maina Mukuha; Defendant: Director of Surveys; Defendant: Director Land Administration; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E150 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interim Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Interim injunction granted for one year; Nairobi City County joined as 4th defendant; applicants to amend pleadings and serve all parties; costs in the cause.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunctions, Allotment Letters, Joinder of Parties, 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
David Chege Nganga
Plaintiff
James Mwangi Thuo
Plaintiff
David Maina Mukuha
Plaintiff
Director of Surveys
Defendant
Director Land Administration
Defendant
Chief Land Registrar
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interim Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an interim injunction.
- 2 Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the Nairobi City County is a necessary party to the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants, having held a valid allotment letter since 1997, have demonstrated a legitimate claim to the suit property and thus established a prima facie case. The respondents did not deny ongoing survey works but argued the suit was premature due to the absence of the Nairobi City County as a party. The court determined that the applicants deserved interim protection to prevent possible irreparable harm, but also recognized the necessity of joining the Nairobi City County as a defendant, as it is the allocating authority. Consequently, the court granted a temporary injunction for one year and ordered the joinder of Nairobi City County, directing the applicants to...
Court Disposition
Interim injunction granted for one year; Nairobi City County joined as 4th defendant; applicants to amend pleadings and serve all parties; costs in the cause.
Orders
- An order of injunction is issued against the respondents in terms of prayer No 3 in the application dated April 22, 2022, effective for one year only.
- Nairobi City County is joined as 4th defendant in this suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Nganga & 2 others (Suing in their capacity as Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer of New Kamiti Kahawa West Self Helf Group) v Director of Surveys & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E150 of 2022) [2022] KEELC 15645 (KLR) (20 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 15645 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case E150 of 2022
LN Mbugua, J
December 20, 2022
Between
David Chege Nganga
1st Plaintiff
James Mwangi thuo
2nd Plaintiff
David Maina Mukuha
3rd Plaintiff
Suing in their capacity as Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer of New Kamiti Kahawa West Self Helf Group
and
Director Of Surveys
1st Defendant
Director Land Administration
2nd Defendant
Chief Land Registrar
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. Before me is an application dated April 22, 2022 where the applicants/plaintiffs are seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, their employees, servants, agents and/or any other person claiming through them from entering into, trespassing into, carrying out the survey works, alienating or in any other manner dealing and interfering with the applicant’s quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the land known as LR No 59/R (unsurveyed residential plot – Kamiti, Nairobi), the suit land, pending the hearing of the application and the suit and that costs be provided for.
2. The application is premised on the grounds set out on the face of the application and on the supporting affidavit of the 1st plaintiff. The applicants contend that they are the bonafide allotees of the suit land vide the allotment of July 10, 1997. However, the respondents have unlawfully conspired not to process the lease in their favour and have embarked on survey works in favour of an undisclosed 3rd party. They therefore stand to suffer irreparable damage if the orders are not granted.
3. In response there of the respondents have filed grounds of opposition dated July 14, 2022 where they contend that the allocating body is the Nairobi City County who is a necessary party in these proceedings and that their role in the issuance of the leases has not crystallized.
4. I have considered all the issues raised herein including the submissions proffered.
5. Order 40 rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides that a court may grant a temporary injunction or such order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting damaging or disposition of the property as the court thinks fit. The issue on grant of temporary injunctions was settled in the case of Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA and reiterated in several case laws including Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others [2014] eKLR; whereby courts held that the applicants must satisfy that they have a prima facie case with a probability of success. Secondly, an interlocutory injunction will not be granted unless it is demonstrated that the applicant might suffer irreparable injury which would not be adequately compensated by an award of damages. Lastly, if the court is in doubt on the above two requirements, it will decide the application based on the balance of convenience.
6. The applicants have availed the letter of allotment dated July 10, 1997. Thus they have proved that they have a legitimate claim over the suit property. The respondents have not out rightly denied that there are survey works being undertaken. They simply state that the case is premature as the stage of issuance of leases has not crystallized.
7. I am inclined to find that the applicants deserve protection at this stage, since they have held unto the allotment letter for a lengthy period. However the allotting authority was the Nairobi City Council hence there is a need to join this party in these proceedings as proposed by the respondents.
8. I proceed to grant orders as follows:i.An order of injunction is hereby issued against the respondents in terms of prayer No 3 in the application dated April 22, 2022, but such orders shall remain in force for a period of one year only.ii.An order is hereby issued to join the Nairobi City County as a 4th defendant in this suit.iii.The applicants are directed to amend their pleadings accordingly and serve all the suit papers plus summons to enter appearance upon all the parties within 30 days.iv.Costs in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Kabue for Plaintiff/ApplicantCourt assistant: Eddel