Mulinge v Maisaiba & 3 others; Kahawa Sukari Limited & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E198 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 317 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court froze the sale of a Kahawa Sukari plot after a woman proved she paid for it, even though the paperwork named other people.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case
Yes. The applicant demonstrated contribution to the purchase personally and through the 2nd interested party, corroborated by the 4th respondent (vendor), establishing an interest in the suit property worthy of protection.
The vendor's affidavit confirmed receipt of Kshs. 7,400,000 from the 2nd interested party and its agents, including a payment from the applicant personally. The sale agreement named the 1st and 2nd respondents, but the vendor stated he believed the transaction was on behalf of the applicant. The respondents showed no connection to the 2nd interested party and no evidence of payment from their end. The applicant thus showed an arguable right apparently threatened.
Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
Yes. She developed a home on the property where she and her son live; disposal would cause financial and emotional loss not compensable by monetary means.
The court adopted the Nguruman formulation that an injury is irreparable where no standard exists to measure it with reasonable accuracy or where monetary compensation of whatever amount would never be adequate. The applicant's investment of finances and the home occupied by her and her son meant loss that could not be compensated to satisfaction by money.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It tilts in favour of granting the injunction since the applicant demonstrated prejudice while the respondents showed no loss.
The court found the applicant had demonstrated she would be prejudiced if the property were disposed of, whereas the respondents had not shown how loss would be occasioned to them. On the Giella third limb, where the court is in doubt it decides on the balance of convenience, which here favoured maintaining the status quo pending trial.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case in a civil application is a case which, on the material presented, shows a right apparently infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party.
- An injury is irreparable where monetary compensation can never be an adequate remedy.
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, their agents from selling, disposing of, alienating, transferring or otherwise interfering with Plot No 1648 Kahawa Sukari pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.The subject allotment document over Plot 1648 Kahawa Sukari to be deposited in court by the 4th defendant in its original form pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.The 1st interested party to register an inhibition against the register of Plot NO 1648 Kahawa Sukari pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 4.Costs to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1(a) and (b), Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulinge v Maisaiba & 3 others; Kahawa Sukari Limited & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E198 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 317 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/317/eng@2026-01-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.