Ntarangwi (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of the Late Robert Ringera M'Kiriinya alias Ntarangwi) v M'Tuerandu & 8 others
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to stop respondents from using disputed Meru land because the applicant showed no harm that money couldn't fix.
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 intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether the intended appeal, if successful, would be rendered nugatory if the injunction sought is not granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal is arguable
Yes - the draft memorandum raised arguable grounds, notably that the trial court misapprehended the law on adverse possession and disregarded the evidence.
Applying the settled threshold, the court found the grounds in the draft memorandum of appeal not frivolous. An arguable ground need not succeed; it need only be deserving of consideration. The contention that the trial court misapprehended the law on adverse possession and disregarded the evidence was sufficient to cross the arguability threshold.
Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if the injunction is not granted
No - the applicant failed to demonstrate nugatory impact; damages may form part of the remedy if the appeal ultimately succeeds.
The title documents showed the suit property registered to the respondents' late husband and parcel 1315 to the applicant's late father. The applicant provided no material showing the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The court considered damages a possible part of the remedy matrix, so the second prerequisite failed and the application was unsustainable.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both the arguability and the nugatory-impact prerequisites; failure on either disposes of the application.
- A single arguable ground suffices for the arguability limb; it need not be a ground that must succeed.
- The nugatory-impact test turns on whether the threatened action is reversible or, if not, whether damages will reasonably compensate the aggrieved party.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated 10th July 2023 seeking an injunction pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Meru
- ELC Case No. E027 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining the respondents from entering land parcel No. Kiirua/Ruiru/827 or interfering with the applicant's possession pending the intended appeal
The appeal was arguable but the applicant failed to demonstrate that it would be rendered nugatory without the injunction; damages may be an adequate remedy
Costs
The applicant's notice of motion lacks merit and is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
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.
The upshot therefore is that the applicant's notice of motion lacks merit and is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
The position in law is that both prerequisites must be satisfied before a party can be granted relief under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
An arguable ground is not necessarily one that must succeed, but merely one that is deserving of consideration by the court.
The applicant has not provided any material to demonstrate that his appeal would be rendered nugatory if the orders of injunction sought are not granted.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ntarangwi (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of the Late Robert Ringera M'Kiriinya alias Ntarangwi) v M'Tuerandu & 8 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E059 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1708/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.