Panthania v Ndinguiri & 3 others (Land Case E355 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 198 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to freeze disputed land linked to a company, saying the ownership fight must be fully heard before any final orders.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a dispute involving company properties
The court has jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claim concerns ownership and title to land under Article 162(2)(b), notwithstanding the 1st defendant's objection that the dispute concerns shares in Pelican Signs Ltd.
The 1st defendant objected that the dispute concerned shares and shareholding in Pelican Signs Ltd and fell outside the court's jurisdiction. The court reasoned that what the plaintiff actually lays claim to is ownership of the suit properties, which falls squarely under Article 162(2)(b) as a matter regarding use, occupation of, and title to land. The objection did not defeat the court's jurisdiction over the title question.
Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
No prima facie case was established; the searches showed one suit property registered in the name of Pelican Ltd, not the plaintiff, and the forgery allegation requires a full hearing.
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown test. It noted the plaintiff's own search of LR 209/12555 dated 14th February 2024 showed the property registered in the name of Pelican Ltd, not the plaintiff. The defendants produced documents of a sale transaction which the plaintiff claims were forged, but that allegation requires a full hearing to be determined. The court must preserve property without depriving a possibly deserving party of property rights.
Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages
Any loss arising from an allegedly fraudulent transfer can be recovered through damages, so the second Giella limb was not satisfied.
The court acknowledged that a fraudulent transfer would be grave enough to cause irreparable injury, but observed that the 3rd defendant equally claimed to have validly purchased the properties and stood to suffer irreparable harm if an injunction issued. Balancing these competing claims, the court concluded that if the transfer was fraudulent, any loss could be recovered through damages, defeating the irreparable-harm criterion.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction over disputes concerning title to, use and occupation of land vests in the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) even where an underlying company dispute is mentioned
- At the interlocutory stage a court cannot delve into substantive issues or make finally concluded views of the dispute
Court orders
#- 1.The undated notice of motion filed under the certificate of urgency dated 17th July 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Panthania v Ndinguiri & 3 others (Land Case E355 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 198 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Undated Notice of Motion under Certificate of Urgency dated 17th July, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/198/eng@2026-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.