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 22-7-2025 (petition, Murang'a)· [2025] KEELC 8390 (KLR)

Nganga v Attorney General & 2 others; Deputy County Commissioner Kahuro Sub County, Murang'a County & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8390 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court / High Court sitting at Murang'a (constitutional petition)
3 December 2025
MGM.N. Gicheru
1,800 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Murang'a court refused to stop a TVET college's construction, ruling the public's interest in the project outweighed the petitioner's objections.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by M.N. Gicheru Judge at Murang'a disposes of a notice of motion dated 22-7-2025 in a constitutional petition brought under Articles 22, 23, 48, 50(1), 258, 259(1) and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution. The Petitioner sought ex parte injunctions halting construction of the Kenneth Matiba Technical and Vocational College at Gatheru Primary School, contending that a public participation exercise of 12-10-2023 in which 91 of 144 delegates voted for Gituto Primary School was disregarded, and questioning the 3rd Respondent's tender credentials. The 1st and 2nd Respondents and interested parties, through a replying affidavit by the Director of Vocational Technical Education, explained that voting was not the sole site-selection criterion: Gatheru Primary School had the recommended ten acres against Gituto's five, better topography, and a Thika Technical Training Institute assessment of 18-11-2024 recommended Gatheru. The court framed a single issue: whether the motion met the threshold for an injunction. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court declined to assess the merits at the early stage of the petition and decided the motion solely on the balance of convenience. It found the greater harm from an injunction would fall on the general public, that there was prima facie evidence of compliance in site selection, and no guarantee of cost recovery. The motion was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the motion meets the threshold for the grant of an order of injunction

Holding

The motion fails on the balance of convenience: the greater harm from an injunction would fall on the general public of Kiharu Constituency and Kenya, and there is prima facie evidence that proper steps were followed in selecting Gatheru Primary School

Reasoning

The court held that since the petition was at an early stage and pleadings were not closed, it would not assess the first two Giella conditions, considering only the balance of convenience. The project is a national undertaking to equip youth with skills; halting it would occasion great public loss and public resources would be wasted. The Director of Vocational Technical Education showed prima facie compliance in site selection, and there was no guarantee of recovering the financial costs if the petition failed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • For an injunction to issue, the applicant must establish a prima facie case with probability of success and substantial loss not compensable by damages; failing which the balance of convenience applies (Giella v Cassman Brown)
  • Where the petition is at an early stage and pleadings are not closed, the court may decline to assess the merits and decide the motion on the balance of convenience alone

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The motion dated 22-7-2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22, 23, 48, 50(1), 258, 259(1) and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya; Rules 3, 13 and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, Legal Notice No. 117 of 2013

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nganga v Attorney General & 2 others; Deputy County Commissioner Kahuro Sub County, Murang'a County & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8390 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 22-7-2025 (petition, Murang'a). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8390/eng@2025-12-03

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