Gachukia v M'Nabea & 3 others (Land Case E334 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1449 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court froze all dealings on a contested Nairobi land title until the ownership dispute is fully heard, rejecting the other side's objection.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection on sub judice grounds was merited
The objection failed because Nairobi HCCC No. 1935 of 1994 had been withdrawn; the sub judice objection was untenable and the consolidation prayer was also declined.
The 1st Defendant objected that the suit violated Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act since the same issues and parties were before the court in HCCC No. 1935 of 1994. The court accepted the Plaintiff's position that the earlier suit had been withdrawn, so no parallel proceeding remained to found a sub judice objection, and consolidation was equally unavailable.
Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
The Plaintiff established a prima facie case based on his title documents, evidence of rate payments, charge documentation and Gazette Notice material on migration, against the 1st Defendant's competing claim of long occupation.
Applying the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the court noted both parties claim ownership. The Plaintiff traced his 1992 acquisition, the repaid charge, and the failure of the bank in liquidation to release the discharged title, and alleged a forged competing title and deed plan. On that material the court found a prima facie case disclosed.
Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
The court was satisfied that the Plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm, given his apprehension that the property would be transferred or alienated if an injunction was not granted.
Relying on Nguruman, the court reiterated that the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating actual, substantial and demonstrable injury that cannot adequately be compensated by damages. The Plaintiff's apprehension of transfer or alienation of the land, a unique asset, satisfied that threshold in the court's view.
Where the balance of convenience lies
The balance of convenience favours preservation of the suit property pending hearing and determination of the suit.
The 1st Defendant claimed possession for over three decades with his family, while the Plaintiff claimed registered ownership and said the property was undeveloped. The court found the issue of possession contested and unsupported by evidence on either side, and concluded that preservation of the property best balanced the competing hardships.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be on a pure point of law, not on disputed facts requiring evidence
- An inhibition under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act is analogous to a prohibitory injunction and preserves disputed property pending trial
- Where the integrity of the register and risk of prejudicial dealings are shown, an inhibition is warranted to preserve the register pending trial
Court orders
#- 1.An order of inhibition under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act inhibiting registration of any dealings in respect of L.R. No. 15013, now Nairobi Block 189/432, being Title No. I.R. 52911/3, pending the hearing and determination of the suit or until further orders; the Deputy Registrar to transmit a sealed copy to the Land Registrar for registration forthwith
- 2.A temporary injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, employees, or persons claiming under them from transferring, charging, leasing, subdividing, entering into, or procuring the registration of any dealings or dispositions over the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.The preliminary objection dated 12th November 2025 is dismissed
- 4.Costs of the application to abide by the outcome of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 2 and 10 of the Judicature Act; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 11 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Section 68 of the Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gachukia v M'Nabea & 3 others (Land Case E334 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1449 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Land Case E334 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1449/eng@2026-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.