Kimani v Alai & 3 others; Alcon Holdings Limited (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3453 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court refused to stop an eviction on Kileleshwa land, ruling that public road reserve land cannot be claimed through long occupation.
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 is entitled to orders of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from LR No. 209/8874/26 Oloitoktok road Kileleshwa, pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction
No. The Applicant produced no title documents; the suit land is public land compulsorily acquired by the government in 2010 for the Nairobi Western Ring Road and cannot be acquired by adverse possession.
The court applied Giella v Cassman Brown and the definition of a prima facie case in Mrao. The Applicant relied solely on occupation for 35 years, but unchallenged evidence showed the land was compulsorily acquired by Gazette Notices Nos. 11218 and 11219 of 24th September 2010. Possession of public land confers no enforceable right capable of protection by injunction.
Whether the court should consider irreparable harm and balance of convenience
No. Having failed on the prima facie case limb, the court declined to consider the remaining two limbs, following Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen.
Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Nguruman, once an applicant fails to establish a prima facie case the analysis need not proceed further. The application was therefore determined solely on the first Giella limb.
Whether the suit land is public land
Yes. The court found no reason to dispute that the land was compulsorily acquired for the Nairobi Western Ring Road and belongs to the government.
No party denied the 2nd Respondent's averments regarding Gazette Notices Nos. 11218 and 11219 of 24th September 2010, and correspondence attached to the supporting affidavit indicated the land is a road reserve/public land. The court therefore found the land belongs to the government.
Legal principles established
#- Public property cannot be acquired through adverse possession; a person in occupation of compulsorily acquired public land has no prima facie case for an injunction
- Where an applicant fails to establish a prima facie case, the court need not consider the remaining Giella v Cassman Brown limbs
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 6th June 2024 is dismissed as unmerited
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
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 LR No. 209/8874/26 Oloitoktok Road, Kileleshwa
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating, disposing, selling or dealing with the suit land pending hearing and determination of the suit
The Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case; the suit land is public land (road reserve) compulsorily acquired for the Nairobi Western Ring Road and cannot be claimed through adverse possession
Order directing the OCS Kileleshwa Police Station to provide security during the alleged impending eviction
Not considered, the application having failed at the prima facie case stage
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs.
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.
I find that since the Applicant is not the owner of the suit land, and cannot claim public property through adverse possession, he has indeed not established a prima facie to warrant the orders of interlocutory injunction as sought
In my view, I have no reason to dispute that the suit land indeed belongs to the government
where an Applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case, the Court need not proceed to deal with the remaining two limbs on injunction, and I will hence decline to do so
In the circumstance, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will disallow it
Each party to bear their own costs
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the parties variously as Applicant/Plaintiff, Respondents/Defendants without a defined party list in the provided text; 1st Respondent is described as the MCA Kileleshwa but full party names are not given in the coram or cause title reproduced
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimani v Alai & 3 others; Alcon Holdings Limited (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3453 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3453/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.