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 the judgment· [2025] KEELC 4245 (KLR)

Katola & 5 others v Chief Land Registrar & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E030 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4245 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
3 June 2025
AKA. Y. Koross
749 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan courts cannot issue injunctions against the government, so landowners must seek declarations instead when suing state bodies over land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (A. Y. Koross, J) determined a notice of motion dated 28/09/2023 in which the plaintiffs sought, pending the hearing of their suit, an order restraining the defendants from transferring, dealing with or interfering with their quiet possession and use of parcels of land known as LR Nos. 27968, 27969, 27970, 27971 and 27976. The plaintiffs, who claimed to be registered owners of the suit properties allotted by the Commissioner of Lands on 22/02/1995, alleged they had learnt that the 1st defendant was issuing new certificates of title over the parcels to third parties, actions they described as fraudulent and duplicitous. The defendants, represented by Senior State Counsel Mr Peter Kuria, opposed the motion through grounds of opposition dated 19/03/2024, contending inter alia that the motion offended Section 16 of the Government Proceedings Act, Cap 40, as an injunction cannot lie against the government, and that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the Giella v Cassman Brown threshold. The court framed two issues: whether injunctive relief can issue against the government, and whether the plaintiffs had met the threshold for injunctive relief. Relying on Section 16(1)(i) of the Government Proceedings Act and the Court of Appeal decision in Attorney General & another v African Commuter Services Ltd, the court held that an injunction cannot issue against the government and its related bodies, and that the appropriate prayer would be a declaration. Consequently, it found it unnecessary to address the second issue, dismissed the motion with costs to the defendants, and directed a mention date for pretrial directions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an injunction can issue against the government

Holding

It cannot; Section 16(1)(i) of the Government Proceedings Act, Cap 40 expressly prohibits the grant of injunctions against the government, so the prayer was not properly before the court

Reasoning

The defendants are government bodies, and Section 16(1)(i) of the Government Proceedings Act bars injunctive relief against the government and its related bodies. This position was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in Attorney General & another v African Commuter Services Ltd. The court held that the appropriate remedy against the government is a declaration, rendering the injunction prayer incompetent.

p. 2
02

Whether the plaintiffs met the Giella v Cassman Brown threshold for a temporary injunction

Holding

Not determined; the court found it unnecessary to address this issue after resolving the first issue against the plaintiffs

Reasoning

Having found that an injunction cannot lie against the government and that the proper remedy would be a declaration, the court declined to consider whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, irreparable injury and the balance of convenience under the Giella v Cassman Brown test.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Injunctive relief cannot be granted against the government or its bodies; the appropriate remedy is a declaration

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 28/09/2023 is dismissed with costs to the defendants.
  2. 2.A mention date shall be issued for pretrial directions.
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land parcels LR Nos. 27968, 27969, 27970, 27971 and 27976

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Katola & 5 others v Chief Land Registrar & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E030 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4245 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4245/eng@2025-06-03

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