Regeru v Vaghjiyani Enterprises Ltd & 6 others (Environment & Land Case E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3437 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kiambu landowner stopped an affordable housing project from fencing and excavating his land because he held a valid title and an earlier court decree.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes. The green card and the judgment and decree in Nairobi ELC No. 1411 of 2016, which were not shown to have been set aside (the review application having been dismissed on 9th August 2024), established an apparent infringement of the Applicant's right as registered proprietor.
The Applicant exhibited a green card showing him as registered proprietor and the judgment and decree in ELC No. 1411 of 2016 granting him a permanent injunction against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The 3rd Respondent's review application was dismissed on 9th August 2024, so no order disturbed the decree. The Respondents' entry and excavation therefore violated the subsisting decree, establishing a prima facie case on the Nguruman standard.
Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted
Yes. Excavation and trenching for an affordable housing project on the suit property would cause irreparable loss not adequately compensable in damages.
The Applicant showed through photographs that the 3rd Respondent had excavated the soil and dug trenches in readiness for the 2nd Respondent's affordable housing project. Applying Halsbury's test of irreparable injury, the court found that if construction proceeded, the injury would be substantial and could never be adequately remedied or atoned for by damages, warranting injunctive relief.
Where the balance of convenience lies
In favour of the Applicant, who demonstrated inconvenience from the Respondents' unlawful activities on his land.
The Applicant demonstrated that he had been inconvenienced by the Respondents' unlawful activities on his land. The court accepted this and held the balance of convenience tilted in his favour, completing satisfaction of the Giella tests and justifying the temporary injunction pending hearing of the main suit.
Legal principles established
#- Conditions for granting a temporary injunction: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience where in doubt
- Definition of a prima facie case
- Standard of proof of a prima facie case for interlocutory injunction
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents, their servants, agents or persons claiming under or through them from fencing, entering, excavating, constructing or otherwise interfering with land parcel Muguga/Gitaru/1042 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land parcel Muguga/Gitaru/1042 (interlocutory application in a pending suit)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Regeru v Vaghjiyani Enterprises Ltd & 6 others (Environment & Land Case E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3437 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case at Thika (suit over land parcel Muguga/Gitaru/1042; Notice of Motion dated 23rd April 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3437/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.