Maguti t/a Lemook Gardens & another v Muigei & another (Environment and Land Case E080 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8518 (KLR)

The Plaintiffs hold a single business permit and the title to the suit property. The Defendants did not deny erecting the gate or that the road is public, but produced no minutes of the alleged community meeting or resolution, nor evidence of approval from the road authority as required under Section 49 of the Kenya Roads Act. Noise allegations were unsubstantiated, and events complained of occurred during school holidays. A prima facie case was therefore established.

Although the lost revenue of approximately Kshs. 5,000,000 was a liquidated figure, the lost sponsorship and the good working relationships with creditors and suppliers cannot be reduced to damages. Continued denial of access would cause ongoing business loss pending trial. The court thus found irreparable harm established under the Nguruman test.

The suit land belongs to the 2nd Plaintiff, who raised no objection to the resort. The 1st Plaintiff holds permits. Noise complaints were never tabled before NEMA, and there was no proof the County Assembly petition was deliberated. The court had no doubt the balance of convenience tilted toward granting the injunctions, completing the Giella threshold.

The 2nd Defendant argued the orders were moot as the gate was already erected. The court noted prayer 3 covered not only gates but also spikes, walls, ditches, speed bumps and other barriers on the access road, so relief in respect of future barriers remained live and necessary.