Kenya Judgment

Environment and Land Court · Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Salome Njoki Gitau alias Njoki W/O Simon v Monicah Wanjiru Gitau & District Land Registrar, Nairobi [2021] KEELC 1433 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case or that she would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. The court noted that most of the issues raised by the applicant would be addressed at the hearing of the main suit where evidence would be tendered. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction lacked merit and was dismissed. Costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for injunction is dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.

02

Material facts

Parties

Salome Njoki Gitau alias Njoki W/o Simon

Applicant Counsel: Mr. Gitau

Monicah Wanjiru Gitau

Respondent Counsel: Ms Muchira

District Land Registrar, Nairobi

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant contended that the 1st defendant was registered as owner of LR NO Dagoretti/Waithaka/1325 in circumstances that warranted court intervention. The applicant sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing with the property and requested production of various land transfer documents. The applicant argued that failure to grant the orders would result in irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the status quo.
Respondent
The 1st defendant opposed the application, arguing that she is the registered owner of the suit property and that the applicant had not demonstrated a prima facie case or likelihood of suffering irreparable harm. The respondent maintained that the issues raised by the applicant would be addressed at the hearing of the main suit and that the application did not meet the legal threshold for grant of an injunction.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358

    The applicant must satisfy the court that an injunction should be granted by demonstrating a prima facie case, likelihood of irreparable injury, and that the balance of convenience favours the applicant.

  2. 02

    Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others (2013) KLR 125

    A prima facie case is established when the evidence presented shows a real prospect of success at trial.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case or that she would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. The court noted that most of the issues raised by the applicant would be addressed at the hearing of the main suit where evidence would be tendered. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction lacked merit and was dismissed. Costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Obiter and limits

  • The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the court that it should grant an injunction.
  • Most of the issues raised by the applicant will be addressed at the hearing where evidence will be tendered.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • The application for injunction is dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Source and reliance status

Environment and Land Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Environment and Land Court

Judgment

[2021] KEELC 1433 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT

AT NAIROBI

ELC CASE NO. E070 OF 2021

SALOME NJOKI GITAU alias NJOKI W/O SIMON......PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

- VERSUS -

MONICAH WANJIRU GITAU..............................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR, NAIROBI..........2ND DEFENANT/RESPONDENT

RULING

1. This is the Notice of Motion dated 22nd February 2021 brought under section 1A, 1B, 3A & 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rules 1-3, order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Articles 35 and 40 of the Constitution.

2. It seeks orders:-

1. Spent.

2. Spent.

3. That pending the hearing and determination of this matter, the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, their agents and/or servants from offering for sale, selling, transferring, charging and/or in any manner whatsoever dealing with the parcel of land known as Title Number: Dagoretti/Waithaka/1325.

4. That this honourable court be pleased to order the 2nd Defendant to supply the Plaintiff and/or produce in court the following documents:-

a. A copy of the Green card in respect of Title NO Dagoretti/Waithaka/1325.

b. A copy of the transfer document effecting the transfer of the suit property to the 1st Defendant.

c. A copy of application for Land Control Board Consent in respect to the transfer in (b) above.

d. A copy of the Land Control Board Consent to transfer the suit property to the 1st Defendant.

e. A copy of receipt attesting to payment of stamp duty in respect of transfer of the suit property to 1st Defendant.

5. That costs of this application be provided for.

3. The grounds are on the face of the application and are set out in paragraphs (e) to (j).

4. There is a supporting affidavit sworn by Salome Njoki Gitau, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein sworn on the 22nd February 2021.

5. The application is opposed. There is a Replying Affidavit sworn by Monica Wanjiru Gitau, the 1st Defendant herein sworn on the 22nd April 2021.

6. On the 19th April 2021, the court with the consent of parties directed that the Notice of Motion be canvassed by way of written submissions.

7. I have considered the notice of motion, the supporting affidavit and the annexures. I have also considered the replying affidavit and the annexures. I have considered the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties. The issues for determination are:-

i. Whether the plaintiff’s/applicant’s application meets the threshold for grant of temporary injunction.

ii. Who should bear costs of this application?

8. In an application for injunction, the onus is on the applicant to satisfy the court that it should grant an injunction. The principles were laid down in the precedent setting case of Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358. In the case ofMrao Ltd vs First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others (2013) KLR 125 the Court of Appeal stated what amounts to a prima facie case. I am guided by the above authorities.

9. It is the Plaintiff’s case that the 1st Defendant has been registered as the owner of LR NO Dagorett/Waithaka/1325. Most of the issues raised by the Plaintiff/Applicant will be addressed at the hearing where the evidence will be tendered.

10. I find that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she will suffer irreparable injury if these orders are not granted.

11. In conclusion, I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. the costs do abide the outcome of the main suit.

It is so ordered.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI ON THIS 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

……………………….

L. KOMINGOI

JUDGE

In the presence of:-

Mr. Gitau for the Plaintiff

Ms Muchira for the 1st Defendant

No appearance for the 2nd Defendant

Steve - Court Assistant

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358

Case cited

Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others (2013) KLR 125

Case cited

Civil Procedure Act sections 1A, 1B, 3A & 63(e)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Civil Procedure Rules Order 40 Rules 1-3, Order 50 Rule 1

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Constitution of Kenya Articles 35 and 40

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.