Shreeji Enterprise (Kenya) Limited v Ranpura & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E088 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 666 (KLR)

The 1st defendant was registered proprietor of the two parcels, but the plaintiff alleged that as its agent he fraudulently registered them in his own name. The plaintiff produced receipts and a contract for civil works showing it built a perimeter wall on Plot MN/III/9192, and the 1st defendant did not deny the plaintiff's physical occupation, contending only that he had been locked out. The court, without making final findings on the contested fraud allegations, held the plaintiff appeared to have rights and interests from its dealings with the properties and thus demonstrated a prima facie case with probability of success.

Although the 1st defendant argued the parcels could be valued and any loss compensated in damages, the court held that while land value can be quantified through valuation, loss from the 1st defendant dealing with the suit land may be detrimental to the plaintiff. Critically, there was nothing on record showing the 1st defendant's means to satisfy a possible compensation order. The purpose of an interlocutory injunction being preservation of the status quo and the disputed property, an injunction was warranted to prevent any judgment being rendered nugatory.

While costs are discretionary and ordinarily follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court of Appeal in Giella v Cassman Brown held that where an injunction is granted, the appropriate order is costs in the cause. The court found no good reason to depart from that position and ordered costs in the cause.