Kobilo Farm Limited & another v Elfam Limited & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Dr. M. A. Odeny
Judgment Date
September 23, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Kobilo Farm Limited & another v Elfam Limited & another [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal insights and implications for stakeholders in agriculture and property rights.

Case Brief: Kobilo Farm Limited & another v Elfam Limited & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information
- Name of the Case: Kobilo Farm Limited & Metropole Holdings Limited v. Elfam Limited
- Case Number: ELC Case No. 24 of 2020
- Court: Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: September 23, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Dr. M. A. Odeny
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented
The court is tasked with resolving several legal issues, including:
1. Whether to grant a temporary injunction preventing the defendant from evicting the plaintiffs or interfering with the suit property.
2. Whether the parties' directors should be held in contempt for allegedly violating court orders.
3. The appropriate measures to maintain the status quo regarding the disputed land.

3. Facts of the Case
The plaintiffs, Kobilo Farm Limited and Metropole Holdings Limited, entered into agreements with the defendant, Elfam Limited, for the purchase of two parcels of land known as Sergoit/Koiwoptai Block 13/4 and Block 13/9. The plaintiffs claim to have paid a substantial portion of the purchase price but have not completed the payment for Block 13/4. The defendant contends that the plaintiffs breached the agreements by failing to pay the full purchase price and subsequently attempted to evict the plaintiffs from the land. Disputes arose regarding the status of the property, leading to the current applications for injunctions and contempt.

4. Procedural History
The case began with the plaintiffs filing an application for a temporary injunction on June 10, 2020, seeking to prevent the defendant from evicting them and to maintain the status quo concerning the disputed property. The defendant filed a counter-application for contempt against the plaintiffs’ directors for allegedly disobeying court orders. The court consolidated the applications for hearing, and submissions were made by both parties regarding the legality and implications of the actions taken by each side.

5. Analysis
Rules
The court considered the principles for granting a temporary injunction as established in *Giella v. Cassman Brown Co. Ltd* (1973) E.A. 358, which requires the applicant to demonstrate:
1. A prima facie case with a probability of success.
2. Irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by damages.
3. The balance of convenience favors the applicant.

Case Law
The court referenced several cases, including:
- *William Kipkurgat Melly v. Susan Chelagat Biwott & 5 Ors* (2017) eKLR, which emphasized the need to prevent irreparable damage.
- *Mary Watiri Kirumba v. Nyokabi Ndungu* (2014) eKLR, which discussed the discretionary nature of injunctions.
- *Nguruman Ltd v. Jan Bonde Nielsen and 2 Others* (2014) eKLR, which reiterated that the court should not determine issues with finality at the interlocutory stage.

Application
The court found that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case as they had failed to complete the payment for the land as per the agreements. The evidence showed that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the land, and thus, any claimed irreparable harm could be compensated by damages. The balance of convenience favored the defendant, who was the registered owner of the land. Consequently, the court maintained the status quo as of June 11, 2020, while dismissing the contempt applications from both parties due to insufficient evidence.

6. Conclusion
The court ruled in favor of the defendant, maintaining the status quo regarding the disputed land and dismissing the applications for contempt. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the necessity for clear evidence in contempt proceedings.

7. Dissent
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary
The court's ruling in *Kobilo Farm Limited & Metropole Holdings Limited v. Elfam Limited* emphasizes the critical role of contractual compliance and the legal standards for injunctions and contempt. The outcome highlights the necessity for parties to fulfill their obligations under agreements to avoid disputes and legal ramifications. The decision serves as a precedent for future cases involving land disputes and contractual obligations in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Kobilo-Farm-Limited--another-v-Elfam-Limited--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1339_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries