Wanyoike & another (Suing as legal representatives of Estate of Paul Gatete) v Gatete (Sued as the administrator of the Estate of Ruth Wanjiku Gatete) (Environment & Land Case E007 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3131 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru land court refused to halt construction because the applicant produced no real evidence, showing courts demand proof before granting injunctions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for interlocutory injunction
No prima facie case established; the photographic evidence annexed showed no construction or wastage by the respondents on the suit property.
The court examined the photographs annexed to the supporting affidavit and found no visible construction or wastage of the property attributable to the respondents. The respondents had denied the allegations. Without evidence of ongoing construction, the foundational basis for the injunction - a prima facie case with a probability of success - was absent, dooming the application at the first Giella threshold.
Irreparable harm and adequacy of damages
No evidence of irreparable loss; the applicants failed to show they could not be compensated in damages, so the second Giella limb also failed.
The court held that an applicant seeking an interlocutory injunction must demonstrate irreparable injury which cannot be atoned by ordinary damages. Here the applicants neither showed evidence of irreparable loss nor demonstrated that they could not adequately be compensated in damages should the main suit succeed. This failure independently justified refusal of the discretionary relief.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience tilted towards dismissing the application since no inconvenience was demonstrated.
On the third limb, the court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that refusal of the injunction would cause them any inconvenience. With all three limbs of the test for an interlocutory injunction unresolved in the applicants' favour, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application outright, with costs to the respondents.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case, irreparable loss not compensable in damages, and that the balance of convenience lies in their favour.
Court orders
#- 1.Application for temporary injunction dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the defendants/respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land parcel Nakuru Municipality Block 10/43 (interlocutory application in a pending main suit; specific enabling provision not stated in the extract)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanyoike & another (Suing as legal representatives of Estate of Paul Gatete) v Gatete (Sued as the administrator of the Estate of Ruth Wanjiku Gatete) (Environment & Land Case E007 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3131 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the provided judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3131/eng@2025-04-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.