Bridget Kajuju v Rogers Kithinji & another [2021] KEELC 134 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Meru court refused an injunction because the land claimant had no title or evidence, but froze all dealings on the disputed land for one year to preserve the status quo.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Entitlement to a temporary injunction
Refused - the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case or irreparable harm; a registered owner in vacant possession was protected
The applicant held no title and produced no documentary evidence of the alleged 1997 exchange agreement, building permits or occupation records. The 2nd defendant held a title issued on 1.10.2020 after purchasing for Kshs. 1,450,000 and had taken vacant possession and developed the land. The applicant waited over two months after the notice to vacate before filing suit, and the delay was unexplained. The court opted for the less unjust outcome pending trial.
Inhibition orders to preserve the suit land
Granted - dealings on Parcel No. Abogeta/L Kiungone/1294 stopped for one year
Sections 68 and 69 of the Land Registration Act empower the court to impose inhibition orders to preserve land in dispute pending hearing and determination of the suit. Although the injunction was refused, the plaintiff pleaded fraud and breach of trust and appeared to have some legitimate interest or rights over the land as recognized in the Mrao test, so preservation by inhibition was warranted.
Transfer and consolidation with Nkubu ELC Case No. 4 of 2021
Not determined - no prayer in the application; deferred to case conference
The application sought no relief for transfer or consolidation, and the applicant had not disclosed the Nkubu suit in the verifying affidavit despite both matters being filed four days apart. As no defence or counterclaim had been filed, the court would give proper directions at the case conference once pleadings closed.
Legal principles established
#- A registered title is prima facie evidence of ownership protected under Article 40 of the Constitution except on grounds of fraud, illegality or corrupt acquisition
- An applicant for a temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience
- The court has power under Sections 68 and 69 of the Land Registration Act to impose inhibition orders to preserve land pending determination of a suit
Court orders
#- 1.Status quo subsisting at the time of filing the suit to be maintained
- 2.Inhibition orders to issue stopping any dealings or transactions relating to Parcel No. Abogeta/L Kiungone/1294
- 3.The said orders to remain in force for a period of one year
- 4.The respondents to file a defence to the plaint within 30 days
- 5.Thereafter parties to comply with Order 11 within 45 days
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 68 and 69 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 (inhibition jurisdiction); Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land parcels
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bridget Kajuju v Rogers Kithinji & another [2021] KEELC 134 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment (application dated 28.1.2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/134/eng@2021-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.