Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of motion dated 14th April, 2025 in the plaint (suit property Title Number Nairobi/Block 34/306, formerly L.R No. 209/6439)· [2025] KEELC 8211 (KLR)

Epco Builders Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E183 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8211 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 November 2025
MCMbogo C.G.
3,113 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi property owner claiming a gazetted national monument lost its bid to block eviction after failing to prove a genuine claim and disclose key facts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on the plaintiff/applicant's notice of motion dated 14th April 2025 seeking a temporary injunction, maintenance of status quo and police enforcement in respect of Title Number Nairobi/Block 34/306 (formerly L.R No. 209/6439). The applicant, whose director Ramji Devji Varsani swore the supporting affidavit, claimed to be the registered owner, having purchased the property from the 2nd defendant/respondent, with the transfer registered on 6th November 2012 and a new certificate of lease issued on 6th March 2025. It deposed that in February and April 2025 officers of the 1st defendant/respondent, aided by railway police, descended on the property claiming to reclaim grabbed land and evicted it. The 1st defendant/respondent (National Museums of Kenya) opposed, asserting the property is public land gazetted as a national monument in 1997, and relied on the High Court decision in Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application No. 114 of 2015 quashing the Registrar's removal of a caveat, which remained in force. The 2nd defendant/respondent confirmed the sale but blamed the applicant for not conducting due diligence, noting a caveat emptor advert and a disclaimer clause. The 4th defendant/respondent confirmed deployment of officers to guard the reclaimed land. Framing the sole issue as whether a prima facie case was established, the court applied Giella v Cassman Brown, Nguruman and Kenleb Cons. It held that the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of the property's history and demonstrated no damage beyond eviction that damages could not compensate. The motion was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case warranting a temporary injunction

Holding

The application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and failed to make full disclosure

Reasoning

The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions as reinforced in Nguruman and Kenleb Cons. Although the plaintiff claimed registered ownership and attached a certificate of lease, the 1st and 2nd defendants raised serious issues on the root of title, including the quashed removal of a caveat and the property's gazettement as a national monument. The applicant also failed to disclose the full history of the property, and no damage or loss was demonstrated; damages would be adequate compensation if it succeeded at trial. The court found no prima facie case and declined to consider the remaining Giella conditions.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • To obtain an interlocutory injunction, the applicant must show a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and if in doubt the court decides on a balance of convenience (Giella v Cassman Brown)
  • A prima facie case requires a clear and unmistakable right directly threatened, proved on a balance of probabilities
  • An injunction applicant must make full and frank disclosure of all relevant facts

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 14th April, 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 40
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13(7)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1, 3(2), 3, 4, 8 and 10
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A; Rule 63(e)
  • Land Registration ActSection 71(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    [1973] EA 358
  • Dr. Simon Waiharo Chege vs. Paramount Bank of Kenya Ltd
    Nairobi (Milimani) HCCC No. 360 of 2001
  • Nguruman Limited vs. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenleb Cons Ltd v New Gatitu Service Station Ltd & another
    [1990] KEHC 53 (KLR)
  • Republic versus Registrar of Titles Department of Lands & Another ex parte National Museums of Kenya and 2 others
    Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application No. 114 of 2015; [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya; Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Order 40 Rules 1, 3(2), 3, 4, 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and Rule 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Epco Builders Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E183 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8211 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 14th April, 2025 in the plaint (suit property Title Number Nairobi/Block 34/306, formerly L.R No. 209/6439). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8211/eng@2025-11-27

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