Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 23rd July 2025)· [2026] KEELC 638 (KLR)

Muriuki v Lamu West Constituency, Roads Board & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E094 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 638 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 January 2026
EME. K. Makori
732 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A landowner with a valid title still lost an injunction because he couldn't prove which defendant was doing the road works on his land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff/Applicant moved the Environment and Land Court at Nyeri by a Notice of Motion dated 23rd July 2025 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees or contractors from entering, constructing, excavating or otherwise interfering with parcel Lamu/Lake Kenyatta I/4061 pending the hearing and determination of the application and suit. The application was supported by a Supporting Affidavit sworn on 23rd July 2025 and a Further Affidavit sworn on 26th September 2025. The 3rd Defendant, through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Eng. Peter Mbabu Patrick, denied liability, asserting that the road is an unclassified road falling outside the County Government's mandate. The court canvassed the application by written submissions and framed two issues: whether an interlocutory injunction could issue at this stage, and who should bear costs. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, the court noted the applicant had exhibited a title deed issued on 26th February 2013, demonstrated possession and development (a perimeter wall and cottages), and produced evidence of entry, demolition of the wall and road construction, with the Registry Index Map showing no road through the suit land. However, the applicant failed to show which of the 1st and 3rd respondents was responsible for the works; the photographs did not show the 3rd respondent undertaking them. The court held the applicant ought to have done more to identify the responsible party, found it challenging to grant an interlocutory injunction at that stage, and reserved trespass and damages for the main hearing. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an interlocutory injunction could issue against the Defendants pending the hearing of the suit

Holding

No. Although the applicant established a title to the suit land, he failed to show which of the 1st and 3rd respondents was responsible for the road construction works, making it difficult to grant an injunction at this stage.

Reasoning

The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles. The applicant exhibited a title deed issued in 2013, demonstrated possession and development, and produced evidence of entry, demolition of a perimeter wall and road construction. However, the 3rd respondent denied responsibility, asserting the road is unclassified and outside its mandate, and the photographs did not show it undertaking the works. The court held the applicant ought to have done more to identify the party responsible for the works, and reserved the issues of trespass and damages for the main hearing.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The conditions for granting a temporary injunction are: a prima facie case with a probability of success; irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages; and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated the 23rd day of July 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Cases cited (4)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Elizabeth Muthoni Hussein v Vikesh Jinit Shah
    [2018] eKLR
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others
    [2003] eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land Lamu/Lake Kenyatta I/4061

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muriuki v Lamu West Constituency, Roads Board & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E094 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 638 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 23rd July 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/638/eng@2026-01-29

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