ISL Kenya Limited v Export Processing Zone (Environment and Land Case E073 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1775 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Machakos court refused to stop a landlord from dealing with leased plots, finding the tenant's injunction case too weak and unproven at this stage.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established the Giella v Cassman Brown criteria for a temporary injunction over Plot No. 18474/224 C1 and C2
The application failed; the court found a greater risk in granting the injunction than refusing it, given the untested documentary record, and dismissed the motion with costs in the cause
The court set out the settled triple test from Giella v Cassman Brown as restated in Nguruman, Mrao, Kogo and Amboseli Resort. It noted it had not had the opportunity to interrogate the documents, annexures or chronology of events, and concluded that granting the injunction carried a greater risk than withholding it, without making final findings on the lease, the alleged misrepresentations or the termination.
The relevance of Order 40 Rule 1 circumstances - danger of waste, damage or alienation of property in dispute
The court cited Robert Mugo wa Karanja v Ecobank on the conditions for a temporary injunction under Order 40 Rule 1, requiring proof that property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated, but did not find those circumstances established on the interlocutory record
The court reproduced the test that where property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated, or the defendant threatens to remove or dispose of it, a temporary injunction should issue to restrain such acts. It nonetheless declined the injunction because the evidential basis was unexamined and the risk of injustice favoured refusal.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must satisfy the three Giella v Cassman Brown requirements sequentially: prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience
- A prima facie case is one in which, on the material presented, the court concludes there exists an apparently infringed legal right calling for an explanation or rebuttal
- Irreparable injury is injury that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages, and a prima facie case alone is insufficient
- In interlocutory injunctive relief the court should opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs to be in the cause
- 3.Parties advised to comply with Order 11 and set the matter down for hearing
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 and Order 40 Rules 1(a), 2(1), (2), (3) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "ISL Kenya Limited v Export Processing Zone (Environment and Land Case E073 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1775 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1775/eng@2026-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.