Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 3555 (KLR)

Abdulrehman v OCS, Lamu Central Police Station & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E109 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3555 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 April 2025
MNMwangi Njoroge
2,090 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff moved the Environment and Land Court at Malindi by Notice of Motion dated 22 October 2024, brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1 and 10(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from trespassing on, encroaching, erecting structures or dealing with Title Numbers Lamu Island/Block I/717, 718 and 257, properties said to abut Lamu Central Police Station, plus an order that the 3rd Defendant oversee execution and costs. The Defendants opposed through grounds of opposition filed by State Counsel Gabriel Ojwang, contending the Plaintiff was not the registered or sole owner of two of the parcels, lacked locus standi to sue without co-owners, and that no police station of that name existed. Both sides filed written submissions invoking the Giella and Nguruman tests. The court, Mwangi Njoroge J, applied the Nguruman sequential hurdles. On the documents, the Plaintiff solely owned plot 717, co-owned 718, while plot 1257 belonged to a third party not before the court. The pleadings did not specify which parcel was encroached, and no authority was shown for suing on behalf of co-owners or the non-party registered owner. The court held no prima facie case was established and, per Nguruman, declined to consider irreparable injury and balance of convenience. The application was dismissed with costs on 30 April 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie case for temporary injunction

Holding

The Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the pleadings did not specify which of the three plots were encroached upon and he lacked demonstrated authority to sue on behalf of co-owners and non-party registered owners

Reasoning

The court examined the titles: the Plaintiff solely owned plot 717, co-owned plot 718, while plot 1257 was registered to a third party not before the court. The pleading was imprecise as to which parcel was encroached, and no grounds or authority were presented for suing on behalf of others. This imprecision meant no apparent legal right infringement was demonstrated to warrant an explanation from the Defendants.

p. 5
02

Sequential application of the Nguruman conditions

Holding

Having failed at the first hurdle, the court declined to consider irreparable injury and balance of convenience

Reasoning

Relying on Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court held the three conditions are separate and sequential. Since the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, there was no basis to consider the remaining conditions, and the application fell to be dismissed.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience as separate, distinct and logical hurdles to be surmounted sequentially; failure at the first stage disposes of the application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 22/10/2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63(e)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1 and 10(a); Order 1 Rule 9
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 40
  • Land Registration ActSections 24 and 25

Cases cited (12)

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown and Co.
    [1973] EA
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, Herman Philipus Steyn Also Known As Hermannus Phillipus Steyn & Hedda Steyn
    [2014] KECA 606 (KLR); CA No.77 of 2012 (2014) eKLR
  • Gesa Building and Civil Engineering Ltd v George Ngure Chira & Equity Bank Limited
    [2019] KECA 1029 (KLR)
  • Nation Media Group, Wilfred Kiboro & Wangethi Mwangi v John Harun Mwau
    [2014] KECA 308 (KLR)
  • Kwale Cement Factory Limited & Rising Star Commodities Ltd v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited
    [2019] KEHC 7819 (KLR)
  • Paul Njau Kimutua v Dickson Mbugua Njau
    [2011] KEHC 620 (KLR)
  • Olago & another v Njau & 3 others; National Environmental Management Authority (Interested Party)
    [2022] KEELC 13726 (KLR)
  • Ephraim Wambu Miano vs Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
    [2004] eKLR
  • Grace Kasenge Mutisya v Willy Mwanzia
    [2018] eKLR
  • Blue Ocean Branding Limited & another v Brand Track Limited & 3 others
    [2025] KEHC 17146 (KLR)
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd
    (2003) eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd V. Afraha Education Society
    [2001] Vol. 1 EA 86
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; application under Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1 and 10(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Abdulrehman v OCS, Lamu Central Police Station & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E109 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3555 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3555/eng@2025-04-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.