Wamai & 13 others v County Government of Murang’a & another (Environment and Land Case E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6553 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Murang'a court refused to stop a public road project because landowners could not prove their land was not public road reserve.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for temporary injunction
They did not; without maps proving title, occupation of land alleged to be a road reserve could amount to seeking reward for occupying public land
The 2nd Defendant contended that the suit land falls within the road reserve of the Muchungucha-Gacheru-Mbombo JCT B25 road and is public land per the registry index map. The Plaintiffs relied on title documents but produced no maps of their own to rebut this. On the Giella v Cassman Brown test, proof of a prima facie case is a prerequisite, and it was not established.
Whether damages would be an inadequate remedy
Damages would be adequate because the Plaintiffs' own valuation reports quantify their loss
The second Giella condition requires proof of substantial loss not compensable by damages. The Plaintiffs produced valuation reports dated 8-1-2024 for all suit properties, demonstrating that their alleged loss is quantifiable and, if proved, compensable by an award of damages, defeating the claim of irreparable harm.
Balance of convenience
It tilts in favour of completing the public road for the benefit of thousands, including the Plaintiffs
Applying the third Giella condition, the court weighed completion of the Muchungucha-Gacheru-Mbombo JCT B25 road, a public benefit to thousands of people, against the private interests of fourteen individuals, concluding the public interest in the road prevails.
Legal principles established
#- Proof of a prima facie case with a probability of success is a prerequisite to the grant of an interlocutory injunction
- Where loss is quantifiable, as demonstrated by valuation reports, it can be adequately compensated by an award of damages and an injunction will not issue
- The balance of convenience favours construction of a public road benefiting the wider public over fourteen private occupiers
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 24th March 2025 was dismissed
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Article 40 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wamai & 13 others v County Government of Murang’a & another (Environment and Land Case E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6553 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6553/eng@2025-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.