Kakuzi Plc v Ndeto & 25 others (Environment and Land Case E047 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8292 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused Kakuzi's bid to evict 25 occupants of its land before trial, holding that eviction at an early stage requires exceptionally strong reasons.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Characterisation of the orders sought
The orders, particularly prayer 6 requiring the defendants to vacate and grant vacant possession, are mandatory in nature because they require the defendants to do a positive act rather than refrain from one
The court reasoned that requiring the defendants to vacate and deliver possession presupposes they are already in occupation, so the relief is not merely prohibitory. Mandatory relief at an interlocutory stage attracts a higher threshold of special circumstances, which framed the rest of the analysis.
Special circumstances for mandatory injunction
No special circumstances were established because the defendants claim possession with the plaintiff's consent and an overriding interest under Section 28 of the Land Registration Act
The defendants asserted long occupation, an MOU acknowledging their presence and an arrangement to allocate land, with only ten of thirty-five families settled. These claims, if true, disclose an overriding interest, defeating the special circumstances needed for mandatory relief at the interlocutory stage.
Fair hearing under Article 50(1)
Granting the eviction orders at the interlocutory stage would evict the defendants without due process and without being heard
The court held that granting the final relief sought in the plaint at an interlocutory stage would deny the defendants a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 50(1) of the Constitution. Due process requires that parties in occupation be heard before eviction, so the motion failed on this ground as well.
Legal principles established
#- A mandatory injunction on interlocutory application will not normally be granted in the absence of special circumstances
- Eviction should only be ordered at the interlocutory stage in the clearest of cases
- Final relief sought in a plaint cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage without a fair hearing, per Article 50(1) of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 28-7-2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10(2)(a) and (c) and 40(1) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 40 Rules 1, 2, 4(1) and 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Sections 24 and 25(1) of the Land Registration Act; Section 3(1) of the Trespass Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kakuzi Plc v Ndeto & 25 others (Environment and Land Case E047 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8292 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Motion dated 28-7-2025 in suit concerning L.R 11674 (referenced in part to Thika CMCC 308 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8292/eng@2025-11-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.