Naibei & 2 others v Moss (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E004 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1565 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Kitale protected land buyers with a temporary injunction, but only over the exact acreage they purchased and occupied.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
The applicants disclosed a prima facie case with a probability of success
The court considered the application dated 3/3/2026 together with the annexures in the two affidavits and found the Mrao threshold met. It did not elaborate further on the evidence in the excerpt, relying on the Mrao formulation of a prima facie case.
Irreparable injury
The applicants established irreparable loss that is real, apparent and imminent
Applying the Nguruman standard, the court found that in the absence of an injunction the applicants would suffer irreparable loss and damage not compensable in damages. This formed the second leg of the interlocutory injunction test.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience favoured the applicants
The court adopted the Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai formulation, finding that the inconvenience to the applicants in the absence of an injunction would outweigh any inconvenience to the respondent.
Scope and duration of the injunction and preservation
A temporary injunction was granted but limited to the purchased and occupied acreage and to a one-year duration, with preservation and DCI compliance assistance
Exercising powers under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court tailored relief: the injunction covered only the land the applicants bought and occupy; it lapses after one year; DCI Endebess was tasked to assist compliance; a case conference was fixed under Order 11.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case is disclosed on the principles in Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of (K) Ltd
- Irreparable harm must be real, apparent and imminent to justify an interlocutory injunction
- Balance of convenience means the inconvenience to the applicant outweighs that to the respondent absent an injunction
- Where there is an apparent breach or threatened infringement of a contractual right, the court may order preservation of the subject matter in danger of dissipation
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction granted to the applicants restricted only to the acreage or size of land they bought from the vendor and occupy, and no more
- 2.The injunction order to last for one (1) year only
- 3.DCI Endebess to assist in compliance with the order
- 4.Parties to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules and attend court on 12/5/2026 for a case conference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act (interlocutory injunction and preservation jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Naibei & 2 others v Moss (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E004 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1565 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 3/3/2026 (suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1565/eng@2026-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.