Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment

Wanyoike v Njonde & 2 others (Land Case E308 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 838 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 February 2026
MKMohammed N. Kullow
2,117 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court protected a homebuyer's claim to an apartment with an injunction, even though she wasn't the registered owner.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her quiet possession of Apartment A-8-2, Silver Oak Apartments, Othaya Road, on title Nairobi Block 13/348/23. She deponed that she and the 1st respondent jointly purchased the apartment from Esther Gitobu, the beneficial owner, under an agreement dated 3rd November 2022; she took vacant possession and leased it to a third party in November 2024. Her tenant then received an eviction notice revealing that the 2nd respondent, the registered owner, had transferred the property to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent asserted he alone paid the purchase price of Ksh 18,500,000 after the applicant failed to contribute, and that her leasing of the apartment amounted to unjust enrichment. The 2nd respondent, through its director Wu Chao, confirmed the joint sale agreement but maintained the purchase price was paid solely by the 1st respondent and that the transfer was at his request. Framing the sole issue as whether the applicant had met the threshold for temporary injunctive relief, the court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles and Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It found the duly executed sale agreement disclosed a proprietary interest constituting a prima facie case under Mrao; that the threatened eviction of the tenant would cause irreparable harm; and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant since the respondents held the certificate of title and would not be prejudiced. The court granted the injunctions pending hearing of the application and of the suit, directed rental proceeds into a joint interest-accruing account held by the parties' advocates, and ordered costs in the main cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Applicant has satisfied the threshold required for issuance of temporary injunctive orders

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success

Holding

Yes - the duly executed sale agreement showed a proprietary interest worth protecting, despite the respondents' claim that she never contributed to the purchase price

Reasoning

The court perused the sale agreement and found it contained the names of the parties, the terms and conditions, execution and the agreed consideration. Whether the applicant contributed to the purchase price was unclear, but on the evidence she had attached a copy of the sale agreement, satisfying the Mrao definition of a genuine and arguable case.

p. 4
02

Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm not compensable in damages

Holding

Yes - eviction of her tenant would cause loss of rental income and proprietary rights not adequately measurable in money

Reasoning

The applicant had leased the apartment to a tenant who risked eviction; she stood to lose rental income and her proprietary rights. Adopting Nguruman, harm is irreparable where monetary compensation can never be an adequate remedy, which the court held was demonstrated here.

p. 4
03

Where the balance of convenience lies

Holding

It tilts in favour of granting the injunction; the respondents, holding the certificate of title, would suffer no prejudice

Reasoning

Possession of the apartment was with the applicant's tenant rather than the respondents, so an injunction would not dispossess the respondents of anything they held. The 1st respondent retained the certificate of title, giving him the stronger position if the suit ultimately failed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who demonstrates a genuine and arguable proprietary interest connected to suit property establishes a prima facie case for interlocutory relief
  • On an interlocutory injunction application the court makes no final findings on contested facts

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with the applicant's quiet possession of Nairobi/Block 13/348/23 pending hearing and determination of this application
  2. 2.Temporary injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with the applicant's quiet possession of Nairobi/Block 13/348/23 pending hearing and determination of this suit
  3. 3.Rent proceeds from the suit property to be deposited into a joint interest-accruing account in the names of the applicant's and respondents' advocates until hearing and determination of the suit
  4. 4.Costs in the main cause

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

MK
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit property, with application brought under Order 40 Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules

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 an order of temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendants/respondents by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise from interfering with the applicant’s quiet possession on Nairobi/Block 13/348/23 pending hearing and determination of this suit.
p. 5Final orders - temporary injunction
That the rent proceeds from the suit property to be deposited in a joint interest accruing account in the name of the applicant and respondent’s advocates until the hearing and determination of the suit.
p. 5Final orders - preservation of rental income
A prima facie case in a civil application includes but is not confined to a “genuine and arguable case.”
p. 4Definition of prima facie case (Mrao)
An injury is irreparable where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy or the injury or harm is such a nature that monetary compensation, of whatever amount, will never be adequate remedy
p. 4Irreparable harm (Nguruman)
Costs will be in the main cause.
p. 5Costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

A '3rd Defendant/Respondent' appears in the attendance of counsel and the injunction orders refer to 'defendants/respondents', but the judgment's narrative describes only two respondents, and their responses are described while the ruling also says 'The defendants/respondents have not entered appearance nor put any response hence the application is undefended.'

minor

The sale agreement date is given inconsistently as 3rd November 2022 in the supporting affidavit narrative and 3rd November 2023 in the analysis.

minor

Case number and neutral citation are not stated anywhere in the judgment.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wanyoike v Njonde & 2 others (Land Case E308 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 838 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/838/eng@2026-02-16

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