Lavington Apartments Limited v Ivory Concepts Limited & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E344 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 530 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court has temporarily stopped the respondents from selling or occupying land the applicant bought in 2015, because land transfers can't be undone with money alone.
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 Applicant has satisfied the threshold required for issuance of temporary injunctive orders
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes. The sale agreement dated 3rd February 2015 and registered transfer set out how the applicant acquired rights to the suit property, establishing an interest worth protecting and hence a prima facie case.
The court applied the Mrao Ltd definition of a prima facie case and the Nguruman test. The applicant produced a sale agreement identifying the suit property under its pre-conversion title, a registered transfer, and an Ardhi Sasa search confirming that LR No. 2/272 was converted to Nairobi/Block 17/132. These documents set out the history of acquisition and an interest worthy of protection. The applicant need only show a fair and bona fide question, on a balance of probabilities, without a mini trial.
Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm not compensable in damages
Yes. If injunctive orders are not issued, the property may be registered in the 1st and 2nd respondents' names and the applicant would lose its proprietary rights, which cannot be compensated in monetary value once title passes.
The court adopted the Nguruman formulation that an injury is irreparable where there is no standard by which its amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy or where monetary compensation will never be adequate. Because the threatened registration of title in the respondents' names would defeat the applicant's proprietary interest, damages would be an inadequate remedy.
Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction
Yes. The applicant demonstrated it would be prejudiced, whereas the respondents, who did not respond, showed no loss they would suffer.
On the third Giella limb, the court weighed the prejudice to the applicant, whose proprietary interest is directly threatened, against the unparticularised loss to the respondents, who had neither entered appearance nor filed any response. The balance therefore tilted in favour of granting the temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- The principles for grant of an interlocutory injunction are the Giella v Cassman Brown three-part test: prima facie case, irreparable harm not compensable in damages, and balance of convenience.
- Where title to land passes, the resulting harm is irreparable and cannot be adequately compensated by damages.
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction issued restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants/respondents, their servants, employees, agents or anyone deriving title through them, from entering, trespassing, using, occupying, leasing, transferring, charging, selling or in any manner dealing adversely with the Land known as L.R No. 2/272 (Conversion number Nairobi/Block17/132) pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules (interlocutory injunction arising from a suit over land L.R No. 2/272 (Nairobi/Block17/132))
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 is hereby issued restraining the 1st , 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants/Respondents whether by themselves or through their servants, employees, agents or through anyone deriving title through them or otherwise howsoever from entering, trespassing, using, occupying, leasing, transferring, charging, selling or in any manner whatsoever in dealing adversely or in any manner with the Land known as L.R No. 2/272 (Conversion number Nairobi/Block17/132) pending hearing and determination of this suit.
Costs of the application be borne by the respondents.
A prima facie case in a civil application includes but is not confined to a “genuine and arguable case.” It is a case which, on the material presented to the court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter.
once title passes it becomes impossible to compensate the applicant in monetary value.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contradicts itself on whether a prima facie case was established: paragraph 8 finds no prima facie case while paragraph 12 finds one, yet the final disposition grants the injunction.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lavington Apartments Limited v Ivory Concepts Limited & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E344 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 530 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion application dated 17th July 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/530/eng@2026-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.