Plaintiff/Applicant v Defendants/Respondents (Interlocutory Injunction Application)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court protected a landlord from rent collection by rivals but stopped short of deciding who truly owns the property.
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 met the criteria for the grant of an order of temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff/Applicant should be granted orders of mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with irreparable injury and balance of convenience for a temporary injunction
Yes - the Plaintiff attached documents of title, demonstrated loss of rental income, and the court found a lower risk of injustice in granting the injunction.
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles as restated in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, requiring a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience as sequential hurdles. The Plaintiff attached title documents establishing an apparent legal right; the inability to collect rent constituted irreparable loss; and the court found a lower risk of injustice in granting the injunction since the matter had not been heard on its merits.
Whether a mandatory injunction could issue at the interlocutory stage
No - no special circumstances were shown and the case was not so clear as to warrant a mandatory injunction at that stage.
Relying on Sharifi Abdi Hassan v Nadhif Jama Adan, the court noted that mandatory injunctions at interlocutory stage are exceptional, granted only where the party against whom the order is sought is prima facie on the wrong. The court could not determine at that stage that the defendants had no claim over the suit property, so the mandatory injunction was refused and only the prohibitory interlocutory injunction issued.
Legal principles established
#- The applicant for an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case, demonstrate irreparable injury, and show the balance of convenience, applied as sequential hurdles.
- Courts are reluctant to grant mandatory injunctions at the interlocutory stage unless the party against whom it is sought is prima facie on the wrong.
- Inability to collect rent from a suit property is sufficient demonstration of irreparable loss for interlocutory injunction purposes.
Court orders
#- 1.An interlocutory injunction issued pending the hearing and determination of the application restraining the respondents by themselves, their servants, workmen, agents, heirs, personal representatives or otherwise from trespassing, collecting rent, denying the Applicant peaceful access and full use of premises known as Mombasa/Block 53/XX, interfering with the Applicant's goods, or conducting themselves as co-landlords/co-owners/agents for the property
- 2.Costs to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 3 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 152(1), 152B, 152E and 152F of the Land Act, 2012 (as amended)
Relief refused
#Mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage restraining the respondents from trespassing, accessing and collecting rent, and conducting themselves as co-landlords/co-owners/agents
No special circumstances established; the case is not so clear as to be decided at once and the court cannot tell that the defendants have no claim over the suit property
Permanent injunction and a declaration of exclusive ownership, possession and occupation (with default eviction order)
Final relief sought in the application but not granted at the interlocutory stage; the matter was not heard on its merits
Costs
Costs to be in the cause.
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.
in an interlocutory injunction application the Applicant has to satisfy the triple requirements to a, establishes his case only at a prima facie level, b, demonstrates irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is not granted and c, ally any doubts as to b, by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour.
I therefore decline to grant orders of Mandatory injunction. I find that the application is merited and I grant the following orders;
That Pending the hearing and determination of this application, a interlocutory Injunction do issue to restrain the respondents by themselves, their servants, workmen, agents, heirs personal representatives or otherwise howsoever from trespassing, collecting rent and or conducting themselves as though they are co-landlords, co-owners/agents to the applicant
Costs to be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The suit property is referred to only as 'Mombasa/Block 53/XX' - apparently masked/partially redacted in the judgment, and the case number and parties' names are absent from the extract.
The prayer for an interlocutory injunction sought orders 'Pending the hearing and determination of this application', yet the court granted an injunction expressed in the same terms rather than pending determination of the suit - an internal inconsistency in the order as framed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Plaintiff/Applicant v Defendants/Respondents (Interlocutory Injunction Application)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4640/eng@2024-06-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.