Embakasi Ranching Co Limited v Nairobi City County & another (Land Case E235 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 355 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused a property injunction because the applicant had no ownership documents, though traders can't expand on the land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
No — the applicant produced no ownership documents and relied only on orders in ELC E156 of 2020, a case not before this court
The applicant claimed to have allocated the suit properties to its shareholders but produced no ownership documents showing rights over the property. Its reliance on orders issued in ELC E156 of 2020 was rejected because that suit was not before the court and its facts were not interrogated. Applying the Mrao definition, the applicant did not show an apparently infringed right calling for rebuttal, so no prima facie case was established.
Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm not compensable in damages
No — the structures are temporary, the property condition can revert, and shareholders are not in occupation
The court found the market structures on the suit properties temporary and capable of demolition if the suit succeeds, meaning the properties' condition can revert. Since the applicant's shareholders were not in occupation of the premises, no loss would be occasioned if the orders were refused, adopting the Nguruman test that an injury is irreparable only where monetary compensation is never an adequate remedy.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It tilts in favour of refusing the injunction because the temporary market stalls serve displaced traders and the public interest
The 1st respondent demonstrated that the temporary market stalls were a relocation site for traders displaced by public road construction, serving a public interest. Granting the injunction would cause loss of income to traders operating in the stalls without corresponding gain to the applicant, so the balance of convenience favoured not granting the injunctive orders.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella v Cassman Brown principles govern the grant of interlocutory injunctions in Kenya
- An applicant seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a proprietary or identifiable interest in the suit property, failing which no prima facie case exists
- A party cannot rely on orders in another case without placing the facts and evidence of that case before the court
Court orders
#- 1.An order of the status quo to be maintained at the suit properties whereby the 1st Defendant/Respondent is restrained from further letting out any more market stalls on the suit properties
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act (interlocutory application in a land suit); application founded on Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Embakasi Ranching Co Limited v Nairobi City County & another (Land Case E235 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 355 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC (Nairobi) — Notice of Motion dated 8th May 2025 (suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/355/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.