Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the excerpt· [2025] KEELC 806 (KLR)

Mavoko Muundani Residents Association & 5 others v East African Portland Cement Company PLC & 5 others (Environment & Land Case E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 806 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 February 2025
NMN.A. Matheka
2,266 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Machakos court declined to stop East African Portland Cement from selling or evicting occupants on disputed Machakos land, finding the residents hadn't shown a strong enough case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, residents of Machakos County occupying L.R. Nos. 8784/144, 8784/145 and 8784/653, moved the court by notice of motion dated May 22, 2024 seeking interim and mandatory injunctions restraining the 1st Defendant/Respondent, the registered owner of the suit properties, from demolitions, evictions, or conveyance of the land, and to compel it to engage them on a regularization model based on a public participation exercise. The applicants alleged that after a 2022 public participation exercise, the 1st Respondent published an intention to sell the land to occupants on a first-priority basis at Kshs. 600,000 payable over three years, but later issued a public notice on October 17, 2023 imposing a Kshs. 100,000 deposit within fourteen days, followed by offer letters quoting between Kshs. 775,000 and Kshs. 1,650,000 with drastically shortened completion periods, alongside eviction threats despite a caveat-emptor issued by the 3rd Respondent. The 1st Respondent characterized the matter as willing-seller willing-buiver and contested the applicants' standing via the Kathama Welfare Association. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown test as restated in Nguruman, the court found that although the title is registered in the 1st defendant's name and some public participation occurred, the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause, and parties were directed to comply with Order 11 and fix the suit for hearing. Judgment delivered at Machakos on February 25, 2025 by N.A. Matheka, J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants met the Giella v Cassman Brown test for an interim injunction

Holding

They did not; no prima facie case was established and the application was dismissed

Reasoning

The court applied the three sequential pillars from Giella v Cassman Brown as restated in Nguruman. It found it undisputed that the suit property is registered in the name of the 1st defendant and that some public participation towards selling parcels to the local community had occurred, with regularization ongoing. On those facts the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case at that stage, so the application failed.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must sequentially establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience
  • A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation, illegality or corrupt acquisition (Section 26, Land Registration Act)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
  3. 3.Parties advised to comply with Order 11 and fix the matter for hearing

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1, 3, 12
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 3 Rule 4; Order 5 Rules 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 22B, 22C; Order 6 Rule 6; Order 9 Rule 1; Order 15
  • Land Registration ActSection 26

Cases cited (3)

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
  • Nguruman Limited vs Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others
    CA No.77 of 2012 (2014) eKLR
  • Pius Kipchirchir Kogo vs Frank Kimeli Tenai
    (2018) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1, 3, 12 of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 3, 5, 6, 9 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mavoko Muundani Residents Association & 5 others v East African Portland Cement Company PLC & 5 others (Environment & Land Case E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 806 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/806/eng@2025-02-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.