Ali & 14 others v Bose & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1017 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court protected 15 families from eviction, ruling that destroying someone's only home cannot be undone with money later.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case with a probability of success
A prima facie case was demonstrated given the Plaintiffs' long occupation of the suit property and threats of eviction and demolition
The court relied on the Mrao definition of a prima facie case and on the Plaintiffs' affidavit material showing residence on the suit parcel for about 30 years, erection of homes, burial of grandparents and farming, with no ground rent ever paid and threats of demolition and eviction. Following Mbuthia v Jimba Credit Corporation, the court weighed rather than resolved contested facts, and found the criterion satisfied.
Whether the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages
Irreparable injury was established because the suit property is the Applicants' only home, which damages cannot restore
Applying the second Nguruman limb and Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai on the meaning of irreparable injury, the court held that the Applicants' home could not be compensated in monetary terms. Demolition of homes and displacement of a long-settled community would be actual, substantial and demonstrable harm beyond an award of damages, satisfying the second Giella condition.
Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Applicants
The balance of convenience favours the Applicants; there is a lower risk of injustice in granting the injunction than in refusing it
Guided by Pius Kipchirchir Kogo, Paul Gitonga Wanjau and Amir Suleiman v Amboseli Resort Limited, the court compared the harm each party would suffer. The Applicants would be prejudiced if evicted and their houses demolished before the suit was heard, whereas preservation of the suit property pending full hearing protected both sides given that the court had not interrogated all documents on the history of the parcel.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella conditions for an interlocutory injunction must all be present and satisfied sequentially
- In an interlocutory injunction application the court does not make final findings on contested facts
- Costs follow the event and the successful party is typically entitled to costs unless there are compelling reasons otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 5th November, 2024 be and is hereby found to have merit and is allowed
- 2.An order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents, their officers, agents, employees, assigns or principals from conducting a survey, evicting, demolishing, harassing, alienating, subdividing or interfering with the Plaintiffs/Applicants' occupation of Plot No.12474/I/MN CR. No.36051, and the DCIO Nyali Police and OCS Nyali Police to enforce these orders pending the hearing of the main suit
- 3.An order directing the Land Registrar, Mombasa County to prohibit or restrict dealings on Plot No.12474/I/MN CR.No.36051 pending the hearing and determination of the application and the main suit
- 4.Mention on 6th March, 2025 for a Pre-Trial Conference pursuant to Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
- 5.The costs of the Notice of Motion application dated 5th November, 2024 shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Sections 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ali & 14 others v Bose & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1017 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 5th November, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1017/eng@2025-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.