Nyokabi v Kali (Environment & Land Case E252 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 719 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court ordered a property owner to remove posts and materials blocking a neighbour's access road, ruling the road reserve must stay open.
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 Plaintiff's application dated 20th June 2024 should be allowed
- 2.Whether the Defendant's application qualified for an interlocutory (mandatory) injunction to restore access to his property
Key legal issues
#Whether a temporary mandatory injunction should issue to restore the Defendant's access
Yes - the case qualified for a temporary mandatory injunction because the Plaintiff had blocked the road reserve, the Defendant had a prima facie case and faced irreparable injury, and the act required (removal of bollards, curb-stones and materials) was simple and summary
The court relied on the Nairobi City County Surveyor's report, which found both parties had built to their beacons but the Plaintiff had erected bollards and chain-link on the road reserve without approvals, blocking vehicular access to the Defendant's parcel. Applying the interlocutory injunction principles, the court found the Defendant would suffer irreparable injury from denial of access and had a clear and unmistakable right. Invoking Locabail and Kenya Breweries, the court held the case met the special-circumstances threshold for a mandatory injunction.
Legal principles established
#- A mandatory interlocutory injunction is granted only in rare cases with compelling circumstances, immediate and pressing injury, and where the court feels a high degree of assurance it would be upheld at trial
Court orders
#- 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Plaintiff from erecting any further structures, heaping construction materials on the common road frontage/reserve or in any manner interfering with the common road frontage of land parcel No. Nrb/Block 82/6171
- 2.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, the Plaintiff ordered to remove metallic posts and curb-stones erected on the common road frontage/reserve and the heaps of construction materials placed in front of land parcel no. Nrb/Block 82/6171
- 3.The Defendant to have the costs of both applications
- 4.The Plaintiff's application dated June 20, 2024 dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a land/access dispute; no specific provision cited
Relief refused
#Plaintiff's application dated 20th June 2024
Contradicted by the Surveyor's report which showed the Plaintiff had blocked the road reserve, a public utility, denying the Defendant access to his property
Costs
The Defendant shall have the costs of both applications.
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.
From the Surveyor's report, it is apparent that the Plaintifi has blocked the road reserve, which is a public utility thereby blocking vehicular access to the Defendant's premises and denying the Defendant and his tenants access to his property.
The findings further demonstrates that the Defendant has a prima facie case; 'a clear and unmistakable right that needs to be protected and which is directly threatened by an act sought to be restrained.'
Pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the Plaintifi is ordered to remove metallic posts and curb-stones erected on the common road frontage/reserve and the heaps of construction materials placed on the common road frontage/reserve in front of land parcel no. Nrb/Block 82/6171.
For the avoidance of any doubts, the Plaintifi's application dated June 20, 2024 is dismissed. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The heading references the application dated 22nd July 2024, but the body and orders deal with a Defendant's application dated 9th July 2024
Prayer (b) in the orders is described as a mandatory injunction remedy, but paragraph numbering in the judgment places order (b) under a stray '11.' after order (a) under '10.'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyokabi v Kali (Environment & Land Case E252 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 719 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (ruling in respect of applications dated 20th June 2024 and 22nd July 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/719/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.