Gikonyo & 14 others v Nairobi Land Commission & 8 others; Chief Lands Registrar & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition 9 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 1302 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court froze all construction on disputed property, confirming that winning interim court orders does not give anyone permission to build.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 8th Respondent established a prima facie case warranting preservation of the suit property pending determination of the main suit
Yes, to the extent that there was evidence of ongoing construction activities; whether the 2nd Petitioner had approvals was immaterial since the impugned activities could change the status of existing structures
The court found the Applicant demonstrated a prima facie case because there was evidence of alleged construction activities on the suit property. The 2nd Petitioner did not deny the construction but justified it as renovations and maintenance. The court held that approvals from relevant bodies were irrelevant because the result of the activities might alter the status of existing structures. Relying on Nguruman, the court did not conduct a mini-trial on the merits of ownership.
Whether the 2019 orders in favour of the Petitioners authorised them to carry out construction on the suit property
No; the orders restrained the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioners' possession but did not authorise the Petitioners to build or to determine ownership
The court held the Petitioners' claim that their construction fell within the court orders was misleading. The 2019 orders restrained the Respondents from entering and interfering with possession; they did not permit the Petitioners to develop the land in ways that could breach the opposing party's interests, nor did they settle ownership. The issues now raised were new and had not arisen when the Petitioners' application was determined.
Whether granting the orders sought would amount to the court sitting on its own appeal
No; the court had issued no interim injunction against the Petitioners, and the complaints now raised were new matters not arising when the earlier application was decided
The 2nd Petitioner argued that the relief would frustrate the orders of 24/9/2019 and amount to the court sitting on its own appeal. The court rejected this, noting it had never issued an interim injunction against the Petitioners and that the issues complained of were new. The balance of convenience favoured preserving the suit property as it was, without depriving the Petitioners of their possession and non-interference orders.
The basis of a review application under Order 45(1)
Though the Applicant did not specifically plead the ground, the grounds argued pointed to 'any other sufficient reason'
The court noted the application was anchored on Order 45(1) grounds but the Applicant did not specifically plead the ground relied upon. However, the grounds outlined and argued pointed to 'any other sufficient reason'. Relying on Shanzu Investments, that ground need not be analogous with the other grounds in the rule, as such restriction would clog the court's unfettered review right under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Legal principles established
#- Interim orders restraining one party from interfering with possession do not authorise the party in whose favour they issue to construct or carry out activities breaching the interests of the opposing party
- A prima facie case for injunction is assessed without a mini-trial of the merits
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction barring the Petitioners and the Respondents and their representatives from destroying, demolishing or engaging in any construction activity on the suit property pending the hearing and determination of this suit
- 2.Costs of the application to the 8th Respondent/Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 and Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (injunction and review jurisdiction in the pending suit)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gikonyo & 14 others v Nairobi Land Commission & 8 others; Chief Lands Registrar & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition 9 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 1302 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment extract (ELC Petition pending before the Environment and Land Court, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1302/eng@2025-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.