Konchellah (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Wilson Sonny Letuya Konchellah) v Konchellah & another (Environment and Land Case E124 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5226 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
She did not. The respondents' possession of the suit property was undisputed and had been continuous since about 1999, and the applicant offered no plausible explanation for her prolonged inaction, undermining the claim of a prima facie case and urgency.
The court noted that trespass was alleged from 1999 yet the respondents had remained in peaceful, uninterrupted occupation for close to three decades. The applicant's unexplained delay cast doubt on the urgency and immediacy of the alleged harm, and no material change in the property's status was shown.
Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
No imminent threat of harm was demonstrated; any alleged loss was capable of being remedied by an award of damages.
The court found that given the long, undisputed and unchanged possession by the respondents, no imminent and irreparable harm now faced the applicant. The absence of any material change in the status of the property over the years substantially undermined the claim of urgency and irreparability, so the second Giella limb failed.
Balance of convenience
Not reached; having failed the first two sequential conditions, the third automatically fails.
Applying the Nguruman restatement that the Giella conditions are sequential and not alternative, and that failure to satisfy any one limb is fatal, the court held that once the prima facie case and irreparable harm limbs failed, the balance of convenience inquiry could not rescue the application.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella conditions for an interlocutory injunction are sequential, not alternative, and failure to establish any one limb is fatal to the application
Court orders
#- 1.The interim reliefs sought are declined.
- 2.The prevailing status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
- 3.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 rules 1, 2, 4 and 10 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Konchellah (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Wilson Sonny Letuya Konchellah) v Konchellah & another (Environment and Land Case E124 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5226 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the ruling (Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5226/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.