Mwariki Farm Co Ltd v Nakuru Waterand SanitationServices Co Ltd [2014] KEELC 6 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

E.L.C NO 235 OF 2013

MWARIKI FARM CO LTD..................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

NAKURU  WATER AND

SANITATION SERVICES CO LTD................DEFENDANT

RULING

1. This   ruling is  on  the   plaintiff's notice of  motion dated 14th February, 2013  seeking an  order of  temporary injunction to restrain the  defendant or its agents from trespassing,  interfering, alienating, disposing, constructing or dealing with  the  property known as Gichua Trading Centre/206  ("hereafter referred to as the suit property") and  costs of the  suit.

2. The  gist   of  the   plaintiff's story is as contained in  the supporting affidavit of Jim  K Kairu,  the  Chairman of the plaintiff  Company,  sworn  on   14th February, 2013.   He depones that the Company is  the beneficial owner of the suit  property, which was set aside by  the Company as a public utility plot  for  the  establishment  and development of a primary school (JKKIII);  that the  defendant on  or  about November 2012 entered  the   suit property and established water selling kiosks without the   plaintiffs authority  being the   beneficial owner of  the   suit property. The   application should therefore be allowed as the   defendants are   for all intent and purposes, trespassers who   are interfering with the   plaintiff's intent to develop the   suit property for   the benefit of the surrounding community.

3. The  application is opposed.The  defendant  filed    a replying  affidavit sworn  on   7th May,  2013 by  Anthony Chege  Mwangi, the defendant's  Technical  Manager.  He depones that the defendant in  putting up the water kiosks was merely responding to a letter by the Municipal Council of Nakuru (ACM1 A) who  had approved a request made to them  by   the   head  teacher,  Richard Kabugi (of  Mburu Githua Primary School) (ACM 1 B) to construct a water tank within the school compound.

4. On 17th September, 2013 the court issued directions that the application would be disposed off by way of written submissions. The defendant filed their written submissions on 8th November, 2013 but   the plaintiff   did not file any despite being granted ample time to do so.

5. Counsel for  the defendant submitted that  the plaintiff had  not  established aprima facie case  with  a probability of success as laid  out  in  both Giella  v Cassman Brown  & Co. Ltd  (1973)  EA  358  and  Mrao vs First  American Bank  of Kenya Limited & 2 Others (2003) KLR 125. It  was  his contention that trespass  had   not   been   proved; that  the defendant had  been  granted authority to  set  up  the  water point by  the   authorizing body as was   clear   from  the correspondence (ACMl A and B). Counsel for the  defendant further submitted, that a school already existed on  the  suit property therefore the  plaintiff  was  not  sincere when they alleged  that they  wanted to construct a school; that in  the event  that it emerged that the  suit property belonged to the plaintiff and the school did  not  belong to  them then the right  person to be sued in this  matter was  the  school Management  board, Mburu  Gichua  Primary  school  who had  requested for the installation of the  water point.

6. On whether the  plaintiff would  suffer irreparable loss,  he submitted that the  applicant did  not  stand to  suffer any loss   because  the   water  tank  installed  occupied a  very modest part of the  suit property  which   would not   hinder any  expansion plans (if any)  and  further the surrounding community was  benefiting from  the  provision of clean and safe  water  from  the  water point  whose members would  be the  most affected  if the  orders sought were granted.

7. Finally   he  submitted that  the   balance of  convenience tilted towards the defendant as by setting up   the   water point they  had  greatly improved the  livelihood of members of the  community by providing clean and  safe  water.

8.  It is now  trite law  that to be granted injunctive orders at an interlocutory  stage,  the applicant  must   fulfill   the following  conditions laid  out  the  case  of Giella v Cassman Brown  & Co. Ltd (supra),  namely;

(i) The Applicant needs to show that he has a prima facie case with probability of success;

(ii)That he stands to suffer irreparable damage that cannot be compensated by an award in damages

(iii)If the court is   in doubt, it will determine the application on a balance of convenience.

9. So has the applicant established a prima facie case?

It is common ground that the suit property is a public utility to be used as a primary school. As it stands now, on the   suit property is   a primary school, Mburu  Gichua Primary  School.  It  is  also   not   in  dispute that  the   head teacher,   Mburu   Gichua   Primary  School wrote to the Municipal  Council  of  Nakuru  on   25th February,  2012 (ACMl  B) requesting for  the  construction of a water point within the  school  compound and  that the  Council gave its approval on  30th January, 2012 and the defendant acted on  that approval. The  questions that remain are  whether the  suit property is owned  by the  plaintiff, whether Mburu Gichua  primary  school  is   also   owned by   the   plaintiff, whether  the headteacher,  Mburu  Gichua  primary  school was  acting as an  agent of the  plaintiff  when he requested for the  establishment of the  water point  or whether the management of the  primary school acted without authority and  is therefore a trespasser on the  plaintiffs land.

11. From  the  affidavit  evidence placed  before  me,  I am  not satisfied  that the  plaintiff   has established a prima facie. This  is  because, whereas the  defendant has not  disputed that the   plaintiff   is  the   owner  of  the  suit  property, the plaintiff   other than  a letter addressed to  the   Municipal Council of Nakuru dated 11th July, 1994 (JKKII) listing its assets, has not annexed any documentas proof of ownership of  the   suit  property. They   have also  failed to assist the court by enjoiningthe board of Governors, Mburu  Gichua Primary School and  County  Government, Nakuru as parties to  this suit o that all  the   necessary parties who  will ultimately be affected by any  orders issued by this court can  fully  participate in  this suit.

12. For the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs' notice of motion dated 14th February, 2013 is dismissed with costs to the defendant. The plaintiff is also directed to enjoin all the necessary parties to this suit.

Dated, Signed and delivered in open Court at Nakuru this 10th day of December, 2014.

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr Aim for the  defendant/Respondents

N/Afor the  plaintiff/ Applicants

Emmanuel Maelo : Court  Clerk. .

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE