Nyanya v Rayori & 4 others (Land Case E034 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7087 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu refused to stop a petrol station project because the applicant's land title had already been cancelled by earlier court decisions.
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 Applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success
- 2.Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted
- 3.Whether the application is sub judice/duplicative of the application dated 18th June 2025
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
Not demonstrated; the register shows the Applicant's title, lease and charge were cancelled in Succession Cause No. 789 of 2016 and the land is now registered in the Respondents' names
The green card exhibited by the Applicant confirmed cancellation of all his registrations. The court also found the application essentially duplicated an earlier pending application, undermining the claimed new facts. Consequently, the Applicant failed the first Giella ground.
Irreparable injury
Not demonstrated; the Applicant claims monetary refunds in the plaint, an adequate remedy
Ownership and possession had been lost through decisions in the succession cause and the Winam case, with no appeal or setting aside. Since the plaint seeks refund of development costs and purchase price, damages would adequately compensate, defeating the second Giella ground.
Binding orders against an absent third party
Orders sought against the third party operating the premises cannot issue as it was not joined
The relief targeted a non-party allegedly using the Applicant's infrastructure. No evidence of the third party's operations was produced and it was not joined, so any orders the court made would not bind it. This further defeated the injunction application.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable injury, and the balance of convenience (Giella v Casman Brown)
- If the applicant's claim is for refund of monies, no irreparable injury arises from refusal of an injunction
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 22nd September 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land parcel Kisumu/Kanyakwar 'A'/112
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining construction, commissioning or operation of a petrol station on the suit property
No prima facie case with probability of success demonstrated; no irreparable injury shown
Order allowing the Applicant ingress into the suit property to retrieve and secure installations
Property ownership and possession left the Applicant through court decisions in the succession cause and Winam ELC No. E038 of 2024
Injunction restraining Defendants from utilising or deriving commercial benefit from the Applicant's developments
Third party allegedly operating on the premises was not joined as a party and no evidence of its operations was availed
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the 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.
I find that a prima facie case with a probability of success has not been demonstrated.
The court finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated the grounds for grant of an order of temporary injunction.
The application is dismissed. Each party to bear own costs of the application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyanya v Rayori & 4 others (Land Case E034 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7087 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in extract (Kisumu ELC, Notice of Motion dated 22nd September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7087/eng@2025-10-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.