Judge rejects bid to stay order blocking firm from Nairobi land dispute

A company accused of trespassing on a 53-acre parcel of land in Nairobi’s Garden Estate has suffered a blow after the court upheld orders restricting it from dealing with it in any way.

Meron Limited had filed an application to stay the injunction orders issued on November 22, 2023, and instead reinstate status quo orders given earlier.

In a ruling delivered by the Environment and Land Court (ELC), Judge Edward Wabwoto however dismissed the application stating that it lacked merit.

The November 22, 2023 orders read:

"That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, there be an order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant (Meron) whether by themselves, their members, beneficiaries, employees, servants and /or agents and anyone from entering on, selling, transferring, alienating, developing or whatsoever dealing with the suit property being L.R.No. 28401 and/or including any subdivision thereof."

The land is in competing claims by both Meron Limited and Langton Investment Limited.

In its application, Meron Limited told the court that the restraining orders had adverse and far-reaching consequences against it, as it was in possession of the suit premises.

It added that before the November orders, the court had not been notified that it was in possession of the land and had been growing crops for sale in it.

It further submitted that it had also employed farm handmen who earned their income from the land and would suffer losses if the orders were effective.

The firm also argued the November orders had the effect of eviction orders issued at an interlocutory stage, which Langton was using to evict it.

It also argued that the subject parcel of land was sub-divided into six parcels all registered in its name.

Further, Meron Limited argued that as the land's registered owner, its titles are protected under the Land Registration Act and the same can only be impeached after a full trial.

It went on to argue that the court had made orders whose implementation was impractical as the firm was still in possession of the suit premises.

This, it added, meant that the court ought not to have issued an order whose effect is to restrain that which has already occurred.

It further contended that in the prevailing circumstances, the orders of status quo as issued earlier by the court were appropriate to avoid a further miscarriage of justice against the firm.

Langton however opposed the application noting that the other firm had not given any evidence of possession of the land during the previous court proceeding.

It also submitted that an injunction order could be set aside unless, subsequent to the issuance thereof, circumstances exist that render the continued retention of the injunction unreasonable or unjustifiable.

It further noted that Meron had violated the orders of status quo it was seeking to reinstate when it put up structures on the land.

Regarding this, Langton stated that a party could not seek to benefit from its own illegality.

It also argued that the suit had not been set down for hearing and therefore it was proper for the court to make the November orders allowing the notice of withdrawal.

The court also heard from The Chief Land Registrar and The Director Land Administration who opposed Meron's application.

They argued that the orders were not issued in error and that Meron acted in breach of the said orders.

It was also argued that Meron was not currently in occupation of the land.

Upon determination of the suit, Justice Wabwoto noted that Meron was trying to litigate over the issue of ownership of the land through interlocutory applications.

He also noted that the firm had not availed any new information that was not available to the court at the time of issuance of the orders on record.

This led to the ELC's conclusion that it would not be in the best interest to review the orders issued by the court at this stage.

"In the circumstances, I will direct that the issues raised by the 1st Defendant be considered during trial now that the suit has been set down for hearing," Justice Wabwoto directed.

From the November 2023 ruling, the matter is set to be mentioned on February 6, 202400.

The hearing of the main suit is to proceed on April 11 to 16, 2024.