China Communications Construction Co Ltd v South Seas Services Ltd (Environment and Land Case E105 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 705 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court let a Chinese construction company keep using Kilifi's Old Ferry Ramp, blocking a rival firm's claim until the case is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Which party is entitled to an interlocutory injunction over the Old Kilifi Ferry Ramp premises
The plaintiff was granted the injunction; the defendant's rival claim was rejected
The court weighed the competing KPA and KFS claims. KPA letters confirmed the plaintiff's approval to construct and continue using the jetty within Kilifi Harbour, which is a scheduled port under the KPA Act. The KFS claim was weaker; the plaintiff had extensively developed the site since 2015 and remained in occupation, while the defendant had invested nothing legally on the premises and its proposed development lacked EIA authorisation.
Whether the public interest element favours granting the injunction
The plaintiff's engagement in public interest projects, including LAPSSET-related works, tipped the balance in its favour
The court held that the plaintiff is engaged in at least two public interest projects, one related to LAPSSET under Kenya Vision 2030, and disruption of its use of the premises would affect those operations, whereas the defendant pursues a purely private business. This made it necessary to issue the injunction in the plaintiff's favour.
Whether the defendant's undeveloped position and unauthorised developments affect its entitlement to relief
The defendant's potentially illegal developments could not support its application
NEMA's letter of 12th September 2025 acknowledged receipt of the defendant's EIA report and expressly barred commencement of development before official communication. Any developments the defendant had undertaken were subject to investigation as to whether they were legally authorised under Section 58 of EMCA, undermining its claim to injunction relief.
Legal principles established
#- The Giella v Cassman Brown conditions govern the grant of interim injunctions, and where a party's developments are not shown to be legally authorised (development barred before an EIA licence is issued), such party cannot claim an injunction
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's application dated 8th August 2025 is granted in terms of prayers number 3 and 4 thereof, including an injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering with the plaintiff's occupation and/or possession of the property known as Old Kilifi Ferry Ramp at Kilifi Harbor pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.The defendant shall bear the costs of the present application in any event
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land and environment disputes in Kilifi County (interlocutory applications in a pending suit)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "China Communications Construction Co Ltd v South Seas Services Ltd (Environment and Land Case E105 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 705 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Malindi ELC Number E105 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/705/eng@2026-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.