Ali & another (For and on behalf of all Nasra Gardens Residents Association) v Deputy County Commissioner Embakasi Central Sub-County & 3 others (Land Case E531 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 836 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kayole community group lost its bid to stop construction on Nasra Gardens land because it produced no documents proving any legal claim to the property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success
No - the applicants produced no documentary evidence connecting them to the suit property
Although the applicants deponed that they had been operating on the suit property and that the 1st defendant transferred it to the 2nd defendant without public participation, no documentary evidence was attached demonstrating any legitimate claim or interest in the property. Applying the Mrao and Nguruman definitions, the court found the burden of showing a clear and unmistakable right worth of protection was not discharged, hence no prima facie case.
Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
No - the applicants did not identify any loss that damages could not compensate
The court turned to the second Giella limb. The applicants did not indicate what loss would be occasioned to them beyond monetary compensation. Adopting the Nguruman formulation, an injury is irreparable only where no standard exists to measure it with reasonable accuracy or where monetary compensation would never be adequate. No such injury was demonstrated.
Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction
No - the balance of convenience tilts against granting the injunction because the applicants have no protectable interest in the suit property
Having failed on the first and second limbs, the court assessed the balance of convenience and held that, since the applicants had demonstrated no interests in the suit property worth of protection, the balance tilted in favour of refusing rather than granting the injunction pending the hearing of the main suit.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for a temporary injunction must first establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, then irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages, failing which the balance of convenience decides
- A prima facie case is one which, on the material presented, discloses a right apparently infringed by the opposite party so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal
- The party bearing the burden of proving a prima facie case must show a clear and unmistakable right directly threatened by the act sought to be restrained, on a balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 8th October 2025 is without merit and dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules (interlocutory injunctive jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ali & another (For and on behalf of all Nasra Gardens Residents Association) v Deputy County Commissioner Embakasi Central Sub-County & 3 others (Land Case E531 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 836 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC E531 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/836/eng@2026-02-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.