Sewon Enterprises limited v County Government of Nairobi [2015] KEELC 116 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court stopped Nairobi County from demolishing apartments that had building approval and a NEMA licence, ruling completed development deserves protection pending full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case with probability of success to warrant a temporary stay of the enforcement Notices Nos. 157 and 158
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages if the stay is not granted
- 3.Whether it is necessary to preserve the status quo pending trial
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case and irreparable injury for temporary stay/injunction
The Plaintiff established a prima facie case with probability of success and irreparable loss not compensable by damages, warranting stay of the enforcement notices
The court found the development was carried out with the Defendant's approval evidenced by the 3rd October 2013 approval letter and NEMA licence. The structures are complete with tenants in occupation, so demolition under the notices would cause loss not compensable in damages. Whether the development is illegal must await full trial with tested evidence. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the balance favoured preserving the status quo.
Status of completed development under enforcement notices
Completed structures erected with apparent approval cannot at the interlocutory stage be treated as ongoing illegal development
The court noted there was no evidence of ongoing construction; the three-storey apartments predated the notices and had approval and an EIA licence. The legality or otherwise of the structures is a matter for full trial where witnesses can be called and evidence tested.
Legal principles established
#- The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is generally to preserve the status quo pending trial
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary stay of Notices Nos. 157 and 158 issued to the Plaintiff by the Defendant to stop further development and remove structures on LR No.6845/1412 and 6845/1371, Mihango, Utawala Nairobi County, pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application to the applicant/Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the Court finds that the same is merited and it is allowed in terms of prayer No. C with costs to the applicant/Plaintiff
the applicants have demonstrated that they have a prima facie case with probability of success and that if orders not granted, they would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by an award of damages
The structures are already developed and they cannot be referred to an illegal development or construction, at this point
the purpose of the injunction is in most cases to keep things in status quo pending the trial
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently refers to the second suit parcel, at times as LR No. 6845/1371 and elsewhere as LR No. 6845/225/1, while also noting that parcel is registered in a third party's name
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sewon Enterprises limited v County Government of Nairobi [2015] KEELC 116 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Notice of Motion dated 7th March 2014 (suit relating to LR No.6845/1412 and 6845/1371, Mihango, Utawala, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2015/116/eng@2015-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.