Maringa & 21 others v Kanyi & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3407 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Mombasa stopped 21 homebuyers' units from being sold or auctioned after finding they paid in full but never got promised leases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants satisfied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles for a temporary injunction
Yes - a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and balance of convenience in their favour were all established
The court found purchasers who paid full purchase prices, took possession and occupation of maisonette units, and were never granted the promised 99-year sub-leases. The plot was charged by the 1st Defendant's company to secure loans of Kshs 39,000,000 and Kshs 9,100,000 without the purchasers' consent. Damages would be inadequate given occupation rights and threatened eviction, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the property until trial.
Whether an interlocutory injunction application requires final findings of contested facts
No - the court weighs only the relative strength of the parties' cases at the interlocutory stage
Relying on Mbuthia v Jimba Credit Corporation Ltd and Edwin Kamau Muniu v Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd, the court reiterated that at interlocutory stage it does not make final findings of contested facts and law but only assesses whether the applicant meets the usual criteria for injunctive relief.
Legal principles established
#- Where purchasers have paid the full purchase price and are in open occupation, and the property is charged without their consent, they may demonstrate a prima facie case warranting a temporary injunction to preserve the property
- Costs follow the event and are at the discretion of the court under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 6th November 2024 be and is hereby found to have merit and is allowed
- 2.An order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, assigns or any person acting on their behalf from disposing of, leasing, renting or in any manner dealing with or interfering with the Plaintiffs' use, ownership and quiet occupation of property known as Sub-Division 22068/l/MN, including from selling, auctioning or otherwise disposing of the suit properties erected thereon, pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 3.Mention on 7th May 2025 before Justice Olola for a Pre-Trial Conference under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
- 4.Costs of the Notice of Motion dated 6th November 2024 shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 40 Rules 1 & 2, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maringa & 21 others v Kanyi & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3407 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 6th November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3407/eng@2025-04-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.