Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 1227 (KLR)

Onimbo v Nairobi City County Government & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E066 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1227 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 February 2026
2,519 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi woman evicted from her county house cannot be reinstated through interim orders, because courts can preserve a situation but not reverse it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Linda Akinyi Onimbo, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 7th August 2025 seeking interim conservatory orders allowing her re-entry into House No. 17 Old Ngara Estate, from which she said she had been evicted on 18th June 2025 by goons acting for the Respondents, and restraining the Respondents from evicting, terminating her tenancy, transferring, interfering with, reallocating or alienating the property pending the hearing of her Petition. She alleged violation of her rights to dignity and fair administrative action under Articles 28 and 47 of the Constitution. The Respondents, through the acting director of Housing and Urban Renewal, Nairobi County Government, countered that the Applicant was a tenant under a Housing Estate Rent Card who was in rent arrears of Kshs 950,000/=, that Clause 18 of the Rent Card itself constituted notice terminating the tenancy upon default, that Section 152E of the Land Act does not apply to tenants in breach, and that the premises had already been reallocated under the County's housing allocation policy. The court framed two issues: whether the Applicant could be reinstated, and whether the threshold for conservatory orders was met. It held that conservatory orders are preservative, not restorative, and cannot undo a completed eviction, and that reinstatement would displace a third party not before the court and amount to granting final relief at the interlocutory stage. On the second issue, the court found the Applicant had not established a prima facie case, given the disputed rent arrears and the applicability of Clause 18 and Section 152E, and that she would suffer no prejudice. Although it observed that the public interest favoured preserving the property by restraining alienation, the court dismissed the application as without merit. The ruling was delivered by T. Murigi, Judge, on 20th February 2026.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant could be reinstated to the suit property by way of conservatory orders

Holding

Reinstatement was refused; conservatory orders preserve rather than restore, and reinstatement would determine the substantive petition and displace a third party not before the court

Reasoning

The court held that conservatory orders maintain the status quo and prevent further prejudice but do not reverse completed acts. The Applicant was already out of possession, and the premises had allegedly been reallocated to a third party under the County's housing policy. Granting re-entry would resolve the legality of the eviction - the very issue in the petition - at the interlocutory stage, which the court declined to do.

p. 4
02

Whether the Applicant met the threshold for a conservatory order

Holding

The Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with a likelihood of success or prejudice, though the public interest favoured restraining alienation of the property

Reasoning

Applying the established principles, the court found a triable dispute over rent arrears and the applicability of Clause 18 of the Rent Card and Section 152E of the Land Act, on which it could make no definitive findings. It concluded that no prima facie case was established and the Applicant would not suffer prejudice absent the orders, though the property should be preserved from alienation pending the petition.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Conservatory orders are preservative, not restorative; they maintain the status quo and cannot undo completed acts
  • An interlocutory conservatory application does not permit definitive findings of fact or law

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 7th August 2025 is dismissed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 1
  • Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure RulesRules 4, 19, 23
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 22, 23(3), 28, 47
  • Land ActSection 152E

Cases cited (13)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Victoria Pumps Limited v Kenya Ports Authority & 4 others
    (2015)
  • Amir Suleiman v AMboseli Resort Limited
    (2004) eKLR
  • Paul Gitonga Wanjau v Gathuthi Tea Factory Ltd & 2 others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Martin Nyaga Wambora v Speaker of the Senate & 6 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI) & Another v Attorney General & 2 others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Judicial Service Commission v Speaker of the National Assembly & Another
    (2013) eKLR
  • Gitirau Peter Munya vs. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Wilson Kberia Nkunja v The Magistrates and Judges Vetting Board and Others
    Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 154 of 2016
  • Kevin K Mwiti & Others vs Kenya School of Law & Others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Kenya Association of Manufacturers & 2 Others v Cabinet Secretary – Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources & 3 Others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Centre for Rights Education & Awareness (CREAW) & Another vs. Speaker of the National Assembly & 2 Others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Chege Mwaura and Raymond Tonui, and 2 others v Nairobi City County Government & 3 others
    ELCPET E038 of 2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22 and 23(3) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Rules 4, 19 and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Onimbo v Nairobi City County Government & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E066 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1227 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1227/eng@2026-02-20

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