Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Plaint and Notice of Motion dated 9th October 2024)· [2025] KEELC 4296 (KLR)

Estate of Amir Suleiman (Suing through its Executor Roshan BA Suleiman) v County Government of Narok (Land Case E027 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4296 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 June 2025
LGL. GACHERU
7,109 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~28 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that Narok County cannot block access to or disconnect water from a property owner's premises over unpaid rates, especially where tenants are affected.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, the estate of the late Amir Suleiman, sued the County Government of Narok over rates disputes concerning six plots in Narok town, and brought a Notice of Motion dated 9th October 2024 seeking temporary and mandatory injunctions, an order restraining sale or alienation of the properties, and an order referring the parties to the Valuation Rating Tribunal. The Plaintiff contended that it had paid rates in compliance with orders in Nakuru High Court Judicial Review No. 46 of 2011, which quashed the then Town Council's decision to increase rates, and that the County had unlawfully disconnected water and placed blockages on the properties. The County opposed, arguing lack of jurisdiction under the exhaustion doctrine in section 10 of the Valuation for Rating Act, that the Plaintiff was in rates arrears and came to equity with unclean hands, and that no prima facie case or irreparable harm was shown. The court framed three issues: jurisdiction, entitlement to the orders, and costs. It held it had jurisdiction because the main prayers were injunctive orders only courts can grant, not a rates-calculation dispute. On the merits, it found a prima facie case: the Defendant did not deny disconnecting water, and rates arrears did not justify an act affecting tenants' rights. It granted the temporary injunction and the mandatory orders for removal of blockages, finding special circumstances, but refused the anti-alienation prayer for want of evidence of any threat to sell, and refused to order referral to the Valuation Tribunal as parties could attend on their own volition. The application was allowed in terms of prayers 3, 4 and 5, costs were made costs in the cause, and the matter was referred to Court Annexed Mediation.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction notwithstanding the exhaustion doctrine under the Valuation for Rating Act

Holding

The court has jurisdiction because the main prayers are injunctive orders which only courts can grant, not a dispute over calculation of rates payable

Reasoning

The Defendant argued the Valuation Rating Tribunal was the first port of call under section 10 of the Valuation for Rating Act. The court perused the plaint and found the prayers were for temporary and mandatory injunctions against interference with property use, not about calculation of rates. Since injunctive relief lies only with the court, the Plaintiff was in the right forum and could not be accused of failing to exhaust alternative mechanisms.

p. 12
02

Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case

Holding

Yes - the Defendant did not deny disconnecting water and placing blockages, which breaches the right of access to water and affects tenants

Reasoning

The Plaintiff alleged obstruction and water disconnection; photographs showed padlocked buildings. The Defendant did not categorically deny the disconnection, only citing rates arrears. The court held arrears are no warrant for disconnecting water, which affects tenants' rights, so a prima facie case with probability of success was established.

p. 13
03

Whether a mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage was warranted

Holding

Yes - the existence of blockages was a special circumstance; the Defendant was attempting to steal a march on the Plaintiff

Reasoning

Citing Kenya Breweries Ltd v Washington Okeyo, the court noted mandatory injunctions at interlocutory stage require special circumstances and a higher degree of assurance. The Defendant did not deny causing obstructions and blockages preventing tenants from accessing properties. That existence of blockages constituted the special circumstances justifying the mandatory orders in prayers 4 and 5.

p. 13
04

Costs of the application

Holding

Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit given the ongoing relationship between the parties

Reasoning

Although costs ordinarily follow the event, the court considered the continuing relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant (a ratepayer and the county government) and held that even though the Applicant succeeded on some prayers, costs should await the outcome of the main suit. The court also urged out-of-court settlement and referred the matter to Court Annexed Mediation.

p. 14

Legal principles established

#
  • A court must determine jurisdiction before any other issue; proceedings without jurisdiction are a nullity
  • Arrears of rates do not justify a rating authority disconnecting water to a property, as that affects third-party rights of tenants
  • Mandatory injunctions may issue at the interlocutory stage only in clear cases and where special circumstances exist

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff's and its tenants' quiet possession, use, occupation and enjoyment of the suit properties pending hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.Mandatory order for the Defendant to remove blockages and obstructions placed on the parcels forthwith
  3. 3.Mandatory order that in default of the Defendant removing the obstruction, the Plaintiff may remove any blockages and obstructions mounted on the parcels
  4. 4.Costs to be in the cause
  5. 5.Matter referred to Court Annexed Mediation for parties to attempt a settlement
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Estate of Amir Suleiman (Suing through its Executor Roshan BA Suleiman) v County Government of Narok (Land Case E027 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4296 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Plaint and Notice of Motion dated 9th October 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4296/eng@2025-06-05

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