Presbyterian Foundation & 3 others v Waiyaki & 11 others (Environment and Land Case 162 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 999 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court refused to grant an injunction because the applicants' own title searches undermined their claim, but froze all dealings with the disputed parcels.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success against the 4th and 11th Respondents
The applicants did not establish a prima facie case warranting an interim injunction; the searches showed parcels 538 and 540 registered to the County Council of Kiambu since 2001 and 1972, and no evidence of registration by the applicant or of interference was produced
Applying the Giella principles and the Mrao definition, the court noted the applicants' own searches showed registration in favour of the County Council of Kiambu. The respondents argued the applicant held parcels 537 and 539 only in trust for the schools and could not invoke proprietary rights. Since the disputes could not be resolved at the interlocutory stage, the court preserved the status quo rather than grant injunctive relief.
Whether interim injunction should issue pending the hearing and determination of the suit
Interlocutory injunction was refused; instead status quo preservation orders were issued in the interests of justice
The court held that the controversies over the suit lands could not be determined on the application and that, to preserve the substratum of the titles, the status quo as at the date of the ruling should be maintained, barring any party from selling, transferring or parting with possession pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case in a civil application is a genuine and arguable case in which a right has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party
- The purpose of a temporary injunction is to stay and prevent the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of suit property
- Where controversies cannot be resolved at interlocutory stage, the court may preserve the substratum of the titles by maintaining the status quo
Court orders
#- 1.The status quo as at the date of the Ruling be maintained; none of the parties can sell, transfer, and/or part with possession of the suit lands pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; interlocutory jurisdiction under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Presbyterian Foundation & 3 others v Waiyaki & 11 others (Environment and Land Case 162 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 999 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/999/eng@2026-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.