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 (Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2025)· [2025] KEELC 8132 (KLR)

Ramadhan (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Jatane Nawe – Deceased) v Mpoke & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8132 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 November 2025
LKL. Komingoi
1,171 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kajiado refused to freeze a Kajiado plot during an appeal because the appellant could not show the appeal would be pointless without an injunction.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Environment and Land Court ruling at Kajiado, delivered virtually by L. Komingoi J on 20th November 2025, determined a Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2025 in which the Appellant, Asha Ramadhan, sought a temporary injunction restraining the 1st Respondent, Leina Mpoke, his agents and servants, from leasing, trespassing on, disposing of, charging or otherwise dealing with Plot No. 121/Kajiado Township pending the hearing and determination of an appeal. The application was supported by the Appellant's affidavit, who described herself as the Administrator of the Estate of the late Jatane Nawe, claimed lawful ownership of the suit property, and relied on the Giella v. Cassman Brown principles to argue she had a strong case and would suffer unquantifiable injury. The 1st Respondent opposed, contending the Appellant had not shown substantial loss or a nexus between the plots, that the application was delayed, that no security was offered, and that balance of convenience favoured him. The court canvassed the motion by written submissions and framed two issues: whether temporary injunction should issue pending appeal, and costs. Relying on Patricia Njeru & 3 Others v. National Museums of Kenya, the court held an injunction pending appeal is discretionary and the applicant must show refusal would render the appeal nugatory. It found the Appellant failed to demonstrate the appeal would be rendered nugatory and that the Giella conditions were unsatisfied. The application was dismissed with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether temporary injunction pending appeal ought to issue

Holding

Dismissed; the applicant failed to demonstrate the appeal would be rendered nugatory and did not satisfy the Giella conditions

Reasoning

The court adopted the principles in Patricia Njeru & 3 Others v. National Museums of Kenya for injunctions pending appeal: the discretion will not be exercised where the appeal is frivolous, where it would inflict greater hardship than it avoids, and the applicant must show refusal would render the appeal nugatory. Applying these together with the Giella v. Cassman Brown criteria, the court found the Appellant had not demonstrated nugatory-ness nor satisfied the Giella conditions, and so found no merit in the application.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An order of injunction pending appeal is discretionary and will be refused where the applicant fails to show that refusal would render the appeal nugatory; the Giella principles apply

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.The costs shall abide the outcome of the Appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159
  • Civil Procedure Act / RulesSections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63
  • Environment and Land Court RulesSection 5
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 1; Order 51 Rule 1; Order 42 Rule 6 (referred to in submissions)

Cases cited (13)

  • Giella v. Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
  • Stanley Anyamba Ageyo & Another v. Musa Matu Riunga & 5 Others
    (2022) eKLR
  • Showind Industries v. Guardian Bank Limited & Another
    (2002) eKLR
  • Joseph Siro Mosioma v. Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited & 3 Others
    (2008) eKLR
  • Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v. Franck Kimeli Tenai
    (2018) eKLR
  • Paul Gitonga Wanjau v. Gathuti Tea Factory Company Limited & 2 Others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Kenya Shell Limited v. Benjamin Karuga Kibiru & Another
    (1986) KECA 94 (KLR)
  • Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates v. East African Standard
    (2002) KEHC 1167 (KLR)
  • Nguruman Limited v. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    (2014) KECA 606 (KLR)
  • Gianfranco Manenthi & Another v. Africa Merchant Assurance Company Limited
    (2019) KEHC 7586 (KLR)
  • James Wangalwa & Another v. Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    (2012) KEHC 1094 (KLR)
  • Building (K) Limited v. Ogolo
    (2025) KEHC 4757 (KLR)
  • Patricia Njeru & 3 Others v. National Museums of Kenya
    (2004) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159 of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 5 of the Environment and Land Court Rules; Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ramadhan (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Jatane Nawe – Deceased) v Mpoke & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8132/eng@2025-11-20

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