[2024] KEELC 13891 (KLR)
The court found that the interim injunction granted on 20.12.2022 expressly lapsed after one year, as stipulated in the order and under Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiffs failed to provide a plausible explanation for not seeking an extension before the lapse of the order and did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 13891 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Chege Nganga; Plaintiff: James Mwangi Thuo; Plaintiff: David Maina Mukuha; Defendant: The Director of Surveys; Defendant: The Director Land Administration; Defendant: The 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 Application for Reinstatement and Extension of Interim Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Lapse of Injunctions, Extension of Orders, Land Disputes
- 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
The Director of Surveys
Defendant
The Director Land Administration
Defendant
The Chief Land Registrar
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement and Extension of Interim Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should reinstate and extend the interim orders of injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with parcel L.R. No. 59/R.
- 2 Whether sufficient reason exists to extend the lapsed injunction beyond the statutory twelve-month period.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated imminent danger of alienation or waste to the property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the interim injunction granted on 20.12.2022 expressly lapsed after one year, as stipulated in the order and under Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiffs failed to provide a plausible explanation for not seeking an extension before the lapse of the order and did not demonstrate any imminent danger of alienation or waste to the property. The absence of a timely application and lack of evidence of imminent harm led the court to conclude that there was no sufficient reason to reinstate or extend the lapsed injunction. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for reinstatement and extension of interim injunction is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Nganga & 2 others (Suing in Their Capacity as Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer of New Kamiti Kahawa West Self Help Group) v Director of Surveys & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E150 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 13891 (KLR) (17 December 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 13891 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case E150 of 2022
LN Mbugua, J
December 17, 2024
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 Help Group
and
The Director of Surveys
1st Defendant
The Director Land Administration
2nd Defendant
The Chief Land Registrar
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. Before me is the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion dated 14. 6.2024 seeking orders for the reinstatement and extension of the interim orders of injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with parcel L.R. No. 59/R. The applicants contend that orders of injunctions were granted on 20. 12. 2022 to last one year, but the prosecution of the case was hampered by their quest to enjoin the National Land Commission into these proceedings. They contend that they stand to suffer if the orders are not granted.
2. The application was served but no response was filed.
3. In the Case of Erick Kimingichi Wapang’ana & Another v Equity Bank Limited & Another [2015] eKLR, it was stated that;“Temporary injunctions are issued under Order 40 Rules 1 to 5. Rule 6 of that Order provides that:“Where a suit in respect of which an interlocutory injunction has been granted is not determined within a period of twelve months from the date of the grant, the injunction shall lapse unless for any sufficient reason the court orders otherwise.”
4. Rule 6 of Order 40 was made in clear cognizance of the preceding Rules in that order. It therefore follows that notwithstanding the wording of any order of interlocutory injunction, the same lapses if the suit in which it was made is not determined within twelve months “unless,” as the Rule further provides, “for any sufficient reason the court orders otherwise.”
5. In the case at hand, the court’s ruling of 20. 12. 2022 contained express wording that the orders of injunction would remain in force for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY. Thus the said orders lapsed on 20. 12. 2023. No plausible explanation has been given as to why the extension was not sought in good time. There is also no evidence to indicate that the property faces any imminent danger of being alienated or wasted. I therefore find that the application is not merited, the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 17thDAY OF DECEMBER 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:Maina holding brief for Kagui for PlaintiffM/s Kubai for DefendantCourt Assistant: Vena