Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2026] KEELC 2139 (KLR)

Chege & another v Kenya Urban Roads Authority (Environment and Land Case E585 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2139 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 April 2026
MCMbogo C.G.
1,577 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Land Court declined to rule on the family's injunction against KURA, pausing the case because the same land dispute is already before another judge.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, administrators of the estate of the late Salome Wanjiku Chege, registered owner of Dagoretti/Riruta/560, moved the court by notice of motion dated 17th November 2025 seeking an injunction restraining KURA from entering or hiving off the suit property for a road-widening project along Mama Wahu road towards Lenana primary school. They contended that the proposed truncation would take unequal portions from different parcels, and that there was no public participation or adequate notice, breaching natural justice and compromising their proprietary rights. KURA, through Paul Owino Odek (assistant director, survey), replied that it was upgrading approximately 750 metres of Mama Wabi/Mama Wahu road; that stakeholder engagement occurred on 27th February 2025 at Ngando Multipurpose Hall; that a 5-metre surrender was a condition of the original subdivision schemes and planning approvals under section 58 of the Physical and Land Use Planning (General Development Permission and Control) Regulations, 2021; and that a 15-metre road reserve exists on the registry index map, with encroachments including temporary structures on the suit property. KURA further noted related suits, including ELCEP PET E043 of 2025, in which Lady Justice Omollo had issued conservatory orders covering the suit land for four months. The court, applying the Gatirau Peter Munya test for conservatory orders and noting the public interest character of the matter, found the issues in the pending petition to be the same as those raised by the plaintiffs and, on its own motion, stayed these proceedings pending the outcome of ELCEP PET E043 of 2025. Costs were left in the cause. The injunction application was not determined on its merits.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether temporary/conservatory injunctive orders should issue restraining KURA from entering or hiving off Dagoretti/Riruta/560 pending the hearing of the suit

Holding

The court did not grant the injunction; it stayed the proceedings on its own motion because the same issues were the subject of conservatory orders in the pending petition ELCEP PET E043 of 2025

Reasoning

The court applied the Gatirau Peter Munya test for conservatory orders, noting the matter involves a public entity performing public functions and is of public interest. It observed that Lady Justice Omollo had on 13th/14th November 2025 issued conservatory orders restraining interference with the suit land among other parcels for four months, and that the issues in that petition are the same as those raised by the plaintiffs. Rather than rule on the injunction, the court stayed these proceedings pending the outcome of the preceding petition.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Conservatory orders in matters involving public entities are granted on the inherent merits of the case bearing in mind the public interest and constitutional values, distinct from private-law interlocutory injunction tests
  • Where a suit raises the same issues as a preceding petition already pending, the court may on its own motion stay the proceedings pending the determination of the preceding suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of the proceedings in this matter pending the outcome and determination of ELCEP PET E043 of 2025
  2. 2.Costs shall be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 1(a)
  • Physical and Land Use Planning (General Development Permission and Control) Regulations, 2021Section 58
  • Physical and Land Use Planning Act (PLUPA)
  • Kenya Roads Authority ActCap 408

Cases cited (1)

  • Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; application brought under Order 40 Rule 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chege & another v Kenya Urban Roads Authority (Environment and Land Case E585 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2139 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2139/eng@2026-04-21

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