Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Suit relating to LR No 12034/3 (IR 195069) - Notice of Motion dated 1st October 2025· [2026] KEELC 221 (KLR)

Mokaya & 16 others v Emco Billets and Steel Limited; Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited (Interested Party) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 221 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 January 2026
MKMOHAMMED N. KULLOW
1,709 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside a land injunction because the party who obtained it hid key facts from the court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Kullow J) determined a notice of motion dated 1st October 2025 in which the applicant, the defendant in a pending adverse possession suit over LR No 12034/3 (IR 195069), sought discharge of ex parte interlocutory injunctive orders issued on 2nd July 2025 in favour of the plaintiffs. The applicant alleged the injunction was procured by concealment of material facts: an un-disclosed sale agreement dated 30th January 2025, subdivision of the suit property completed before the orders were issued, the existence of the applicant's steel factory operating on 26.6774 acres within the suit property, and failure to disclose the true acreage relative to the 45.99 acres claimed. The plaintiffs, through a replying affidavit sworn by Daniel Nyanchoga Mokaya, denied concealment and argued the injunction was necessary because the defendant was subdividing the suit property. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicant had established valid grounds to set aside the orders. Relying on Order 40 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the established case law factors for discharging injunctions, the court found the alleged concealments were not controverted - the sale agreement was not denied, the steel factory's existence was confirmed, and the plaintiffs were dismissive on the vital issue of acreage. It held the injunction had been obtained through concealment of facts which, if known, would have altered the court's reasoning. The application was allowed, the ex parte interlocutory injunctive orders were set aside, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs. No order was made striking out the plaintiffs' underlying application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant established valid grounds to set aside the injunction orders issued on 2nd July 2025

Holding

Yes - the ex parte injunction was obtained through concealment of material facts, namely the sale agreement, the already completed subdivision, the existence of a steel factory on 26.6774 acres, and the failure to disclose the correct acreage

Reasoning

The court applied Order 40 Rule 7 and the case law factors for discharging an injunction. It found that the plaintiffs did not controvert the alleged concealments: the sale agreement of 30th January 2025 was not denied, the steel factory's existence was confirmed, and the plaintiffs were dismissive about the acreage. The court concluded that had the judge who granted the injunction known these facts, the reasoning would have differed, warranting discharge of the orders.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The discretion under Order 40 Rule 7 to discharge an injunction must be exercised sparingly and not as a tool for appeal, but an injunction obtained by concealment of material facts may be set aside
  • An interlocutory injunction obtained by misrepresentation or concealment of material facts will be discharged on the application of the aggrieved party

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated 1st October 2025 is allowed
  2. 2.The ex parte interlocutory injunctive orders issued on 2nd July 2025 are set aside
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction and Order 40 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules permitting discharge, variation or setting aside of injunction orders

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mokaya & 16 others v Emco Billets and Steel Limited; Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited (Interested Party) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 221 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Suit relating to LR No 12034/3 (IR 195069) - Notice of Motion dated 1st October 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/221/eng@2026-01-21

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