Silipet Properties Limited & another v Chege Mwaura & another [2017] KEELC 3299 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Nairobi's Environment and Land Court ruled that a county cannot lease a road reserve to a private person and ordered a container blocking an access lane removed within 30 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case warranting interlocutory injunctive relief
Yes; the plaintiffs established a strong case with a high probability of success because the allocation of the lane to the 1st defendant was wrongful and his occupation illegal.
The court found the 10 feet lane vested in the 2nd defendant but held in trust for the public and abutting owners. The 2nd defendant allocated it to the 1st defendant without consulting the plaintiffs or area residents and without following the procedure for allocating public land. The container completely blocked the lane, defeating its purpose as an access road. The allocation was therefore wrongful and the 1st defendant's occupation illegal, and the fact that others also blocked the lane did not cure the illegality.
Whether the County has unfettered discretion over the road reserve
No; the 2nd defendant holds the lane in trust for the public and abutting property owners and cannot deal with it inconsistently with its reserved purpose without consulting them.
The court rejected the 2nd defendant's claim that it could do whatever it pleased with the land on which the container stood. As trustee of the lane, the County must deal with it consistently with the purposes for which it was reserved and in the interests of area residents. Section 2 of Cap 399 defines a road reserve as a public road, which cannot be blocked or closed without due process.
Whether the threshold for a temporary mandatory injunction was met
Yes; the court applied the higher standard from Locabail, Shepherd Homes and Redland Bricks and found the plaintiffs' case unusually strong and clear.
A temporary mandatory injunction effectively determines the suit without trial and requires more than a prima facie case - a very strong case likely to succeed, with special circumstances or clear cases of simple, easily remediable acts. The court held that the plaintiffs met both the normal Giella conditions and this higher threshold, since the container's removal was a simple and summary act and irreparable, unquantifiable harm was shown.
Whether the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm
Yes; the loss likely to be suffered if the injunction was not granted was unquantifiable and not compensable in damages.
The plaintiffs, as registered proprietor of the suit property, were entitled to the benefit of the access lane under section 25(1) of the Land Registration Act. The container blocked movement through the lane, impeding delivery of construction materials and development of the property. The court was persuaded that this loss was not capable of being compensated in damages, satisfying the second Giella condition.
Legal principles established
#- A public body holding a road reserve does so in trust for the public and abutting owners, and cannot allocate it inconsistently with that purpose without consultation or due process.
- A temporary mandatory injunction requires an unusually strong and clear case, a higher threshold than a prohibitory injunction.
- A road reserve is a public road under the Public Roads and Roads of Access Act and may not be blocked or closed without due process.
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs' application dated 11th March 2016 allowed in terms of prayers 3 and 4 thereof
- 2.A temporary prohibitory and mandatory injunction issued restraining the 1st defendant from occupying/blocking the access lane adjacent to L.R No. 209/1954/2
- 3.The 1st defendant shall remove the container he has placed on the lane adjacent to L.R No. 209/1954/2 forthwith and in any event not later than thirty (30) days from the date of the order
- 4.The Pangani OCS to oversee enforcement of the orders (prayer 3)
- 5.Costs of the application to the plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a dispute concerning access to land (L.R No. 209/1954/2) in Nairobi County; Land Registration Act, 2012 and Public Roads and Roads of Access Act (Cap 399) considered
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (5)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Njeru & another v County Government of Embu & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E024 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1986 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 1986 (KLR)17 Mar 2026
- Marete v CECM Lands Physical Planning Urban Development, Housing and Public Works & another (Petition E008 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6916 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 6916 (KLR)16 Oct 2024
- Mungai & another v Cheska Agencies Limited & another[2023] KEELC 21768 (KLR)21 Nov 2023applied
- Ceaser Ikunda Stephen v Misheck Muthamia M'Itonga[2023] KEELC 19012 (KLR)19 Jul 2023applied
- Jackson Kipngeny Kipkurere & another v David Busienei & another [2021] KEELC 2179 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 2179 (KLR)18 Aug 2021
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Silipet Properties Limited & another v Chege Mwaura & another [2017] KEELC 3299 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment extract (suit filed 14th March 2016; Notice of Motion dated 11th March 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3299/eng@2017-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.