Njoroge & another v Gikanga & 2 others (Land Case E205 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4219 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court gave the registered owners of Githunguri/Githiga/6187 an injunction against family members, but refused to evict them without a full trial.
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 Applicants have met the threshold for the grant of an order of injunction
- 2.Whether the Applicants are entitled to the eviction orders sought
- 3.Who will bear the costs of the Application
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - the Applicants produced Certificates of Title showing registration of Githunguri/Githiga/6187 in their names following transmission from the Estate of Gikanga Gachagwi.
The court examined the Certificate of Title (ANN-1) and confirmed that land parcel Githunguri/Githiga/6187 was registered in the Applicants' names. Having obtained letters of administration and a court order allowing the Deputy Registrar to execute transfer documents in place of uncooperative administrators, the Applicants demonstrated registered ownership. This satisfied the Mrao definition of a prima facie case - a genuine and arguable case showing an apparently infringed right.
Whether the Applicants would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
Yes - as registered owners trespassing Respondents were denying them access, and the balance of convenience tilted in their favour.
Relying on Nguruman Limited v Bonde Nielsen, the court found the Applicants demonstrated actual harm: the Respondents erected structures on the suit property, violently denied the Applicants access, and ignored an eviction notice. An OB extract and photographs corroborated this. The court found the harm could not adequately be compensated in damages and that the balance of convenience favoured the registered owner, rendering the application merited on the injunction limb.
Whether the Applicants were entitled to eviction orders on the papers
No - the dispute is emotive, involves allegations of fraud and forgery, and can only be resolved at a full trial.
Although the Applicants held title and invoked Sections 152A, 152B, 152E and 152F of the Land Act, the Respondents asserted their own occupation and alleged fraudulent apportionment, forged processes, an illiterate father cheated of his land, and ongoing DCI investigations. The court found no credible independent evidence of trespass (no surveyor's or land registrar's report) and held that the matter required a full civil suit hearing rather than summary resolution.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella v Cassman Brown principles govern the grant of temporary injunctions: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable harm not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience if in doubt.
- A prima facie case is a genuine and arguable case showing an apparent infringement of a right calling for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party.
- The burden is on the injunction applicant to demonstrate actual, substantial and demonstrable irreparable injury; speculative injury will not suffice.
- Costs follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court for good reason directs otherwise; here, the parties being close relatives, each party was ordered to bear own costs.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction issued against the Defendants/Respondents, their agents, servants, employees, assigns or any other person, restraining them from trespassing into, occupying, dealing with and/or interfering in any way with the Plaintiffs/Applicants' quiet enjoyment, possession, use and ownership of the suit property known as Githunguri/Githiga/6187 pending hearing and final determination of the suit
- 2.Parties to go for Pre-trial Conference on 3/07/2025
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the Application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 4 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 3, 3A and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 152A, 152B, 152E and 152F of the Land Act (as amended by Act No. 28 of 2016)
Relief refused
#Orders of eviction from Land Parcel No. Githunguri/Githiga/6187 and delivery of vacant possession
The dispute is emotive and not suitable for summary resolution; the alleged trespass requires interrogation at a full trial and no credible independent evidence of trespass (e.g. surveyor's or registrar's report) was produced.
Direction to the OCS Githiga Police Station to provide security and ensure compliance with eviction orders
Consequential to the refusal of the eviction order - there was no order to enforce.
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs of this Application.
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.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the Notice of Motion Application dated 11/12/2024 succeeds partially and the Court issues the following Orders:
That this Honourable Court hereby issues a temporary injunction against the Defendants/ Respondents, their agents, servants, employees, assigns or any other person whomsoever restraining them from trespassing into, occupying, dealing with and/or interfering in any way with the Plaintiffs/Applicants' quiet enjoyment, possession, use and ownership of the suit property known as Githunguri/Githiga/6187 pending hearing and final determination of the suit.
Each party to bear their own cost of this Application.
This Court noting how emotive land matters are, is convinced as per the Respondent's position that the dispute among the parties is not suitable for resolution in a summary manner since it is not a simple and straightforward matter.
There is no credible and independent evidence filed on record to demonstrate the alleged trespass. There is no report from a Surveyor, Land Registrar or other expert to demonstrate the alleged trespass.
Issues in the judgment
#Thesuit number and full names of the parties are not stated anywhere in the judgment; only the Notice of Motion date is given.
Irreparable harm limb and prima facie limb were found satisfied, yet the same trespass allegations were held unproven for eviction purposes - an apparent internal tension the court did not expressly reconcile.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge & another v Gikanga & 2 others (Land Case E205 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4219 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 11/12/2024 (suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4219/eng@2025-06-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.