Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Maywood Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E090 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 2858 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court froze dealings on Mombasa land parcel MN/V1/2588, ruling that allegedly grabbed public port land can't be replaced by money damages.
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 has met the threshold for the inhibition order sought to issue at this stage
- 2.Who pays the costs
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
The plaintiff's contention that the suit property is public land belonging to KPA fraudulently allocated to the 1st defendant established a prima facie case
The court reviewed the pleaded history of the parcel from KPA's land, the lease to Mobil Oil, the 1998 allotment letter and subsequent issuance of grant CR 45734 and transfer to the 2nd defendant. Though aware no final findings could be made, it was satisfied the plaintiff's narrative of fraudulent alienation of public land disclosed a prima facie case with a probability of success.
Irreparable harm
If the suit succeeds the property reverts to public land, and damages cannot adequately compensate the Kenyan public
The 2nd defendant argued no risk of onward transfer and that land value is ascertainable. The court held that a successful claim would restore the property to public land, and that the resulting loss to the Kenyan public is not adequately remedied by damages, as in the KACC v Njenga case, plus avoiding further transactions under lis pendens.
Balance of convenience
Balance of convenience, considering public interest, tilts towards granting the inhibition
The court weighed the public interest in the suit should the plaintiff succeed against the defendants' claimed rights of title. Given the alleged public character of the land, it concluded the balance of convenience favoured preserving the suit property pending full trial.
Costs
Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit
Although section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides costs follow the event, the court discretionarily held the interests of justice better served by deferring costs of the interlocutory application until the outcome of the main suit.
Legal principles established
#- The interlocutory thresholds for temporary injunctive/inhibition orders are a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable loss not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience
- An interlocutory court does not make final determinations of law or fact, which await full trial
- Loss of public land to the Kenyan public cannot be adequately remedied by an award of damages
Court orders
#- 1.An inhibition order restraining the 2nd defendant from alienating, transferring, charging, leasing, subdividing, consolidating, disposing of, wasting, or undertaking any construction or development on, or dealing with parcel MN/V1/2588 pending hearing and determination of the plaintiff's suit
- 2.Costs in the application to abide the outcome of the main suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes; interlocutory application under the Civil Procedure Act (cap 21)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application to a successful party
The court ordered costs to abide the outcome of the main suit rather than follow the event
Costs
Costs in the application to abide the outcome of the main suit.
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.
That an inhibition order is hereby issued restraining the 2nd defendant whether by itself or through its agents, servants or assigns from alienating, transferring, charging, leasing, subdividing, consolidating, disposing of, wasting, or undertaking any construction or development of any nature thereon or on any part thereof of parcel described as MN/V1/2588, suit property, or from howsoever dealing with the said property pending the hearing and determination of the plaintifi's suit
the court is satisfied the plaintifi has established a prima facie case
That loss to the Kenya public is not to be remedied adequately by an award of damages
That the costs in the application to abide the outcome of the main suit
Issues in the judgment
#The pleading refers to parcels MN/V1/2586 and 2586 as distinct parcels, an apparent typographical inconsistency in the 1st defendant's deposition
The 1st defendant deposes that the parcel KPA leased to Mobil Oil was MN/V1/2586 and not 2588, while the plaintiff's affidavit history describes the carved-out parcel as allocated number MN/V1/2586 and later renamed MN/V1/2588
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Maywood Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E090 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 2858 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Mombasa — Notice of Motion dated 9th October 2024 (suit number not stated in extract). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/2858/eng@2025-03-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.