Mbithuka v Kirimania & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E016 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8595 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi land buyer with undisputed title won court protection from rent collection, but the court deferred ordering repayment of collected rent until full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiff has met the threshold for issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from collecting rent or interfering with the Plaintiff's ownership of LR No. Nairobi/Block 82/1926
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to render accounts of rent collected since 1st April 2024
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for temporary injunction
The Plaintiff established a prima facie case as he purchased the suit property, holds documents of title, the Defendants did not dispute his title, and their addendum claim did not affect his ownership
The court examined the documents annexed to the supporting affidavit and found the Plaintiff purchased the property and holds title documents. The Defendants did not dispute the title. Their alleged addendum requiring further payment of Kshs.1.6 million was found not to interfere with the Plaintiff's ownership while he services a mortgage, warranting the interlocutory injunction.
Irreparable harm and balance of convenience
The Plaintiff, servicing a mortgage and blocked from accessing the property, suffers irreparable harm not compensable by damages, and the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction
The court reasoned that the Plaintiff is servicing a mortgage of Kshs.350,000 per month while being denied access to collect rent, a loss not adequately compensable in damages. Since the Defendants blocked his access, the balance of convenience tilts towards granting the prohibitory injunction pending trial.
Mandatory injunction / accounts at interlocutory stage
Refused; a temporary mandatory injunction requires special circumstances in the clearest of cases, and the accounts issue should await trial
Relying on Nation Media Group & 2 others v John Harun Mwau, the court held that interlocutory mandatory injunctions demand a higher standard than prohibitory injunctions and exceptional, special circumstances. On the facts, the case was not clear enough, and the question of accounts was reserved for the full hearing of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- An interlocutory mandatory injunction requires a higher standard than a prohibitory injunction and can only be granted in exceptional and special circumstances, in the clearest of cases
- A party holding undisputed documents of title over suit property who is servicing a mortgage and denied access establishes a prima facie case with irreparable harm for an interlocutory prohibitory injunction
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents/servants, employees and or assigns from collecting rent from the tenants in occupation of the property known as Nairobi/Block 82/1926 pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.The Respondents, their agents/servants, employees and or assigns restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever with accessing, trespassing on or interfering with the property known as Nairobi/Block 82/1926 and its management, quiet and lawful use until the hearing and determination of the main suit
- 3.The OCS Buru Buru Police Station to ensure compliance of the Order
- 4.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (interlocutory application in a pending suit)
Relief refused
#Prayer that the Respondents render accounts for rent collected since 1st April 2024 to date (interlocutory mandatory injunction)
A mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage requires special circumstances and a higher standard; this was not a clear case, and accounts will be dealt with at the hearing of the suit
Costs
Costs will be in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
That a temporary injunction be and hereby issued restraining the Respondents, their agents/ servants, employees and or assigns from collecting rent from the tenants in occupation of the property known as Nairobi/Block 82/1926 pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
That the OCS Buru Buru Police Station do ensure compliance of this Order.
Costs will be in the cause
I find the instant Notice of Motion application partially successful and will allow it in the following terms
It is trite law that for an interlocutory mandatory injunction to issue, an applicant must demonstrate existence of special circumstances
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to parties inconsistently as 'Plaintiff' and 'Respondents' and 'Defendants', and the case number and full party names are not stated in the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbithuka v Kirimania & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E016 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8595 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8595/eng@2025-12-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.