WRONG

The applicant, a wildlife conservationist, required the court to issue an interim injunction restraining the respondent from carrying on any mining activities on a parcel of land known as Kajiado/Ole Kasasi/593.

The arguments of the applicant are based on a written agreement executed by both parties and in which the respondent, who owns the land, agreed to preserve the land and to ensure no mining activity was carried out.

But, in the end, the respondent allowed mining activities to take place on his parcel. The respondent answer that it was not possible to assert if those mining activities constitute a breach of the agreement because the agreement was not demarcated on the ground.

The court considered that even if the respondent denied that the activities take place on the portion included in the conservation agreement, those activities could have an impact on this area. Therefore, the court issued the interim injunction requested by the appellant.