Dhanani & another v Musei & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E127 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2547 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court blocked all dealings with contested Kajiado land, ruling that a title certificate alone cannot shield ownership from fraud allegations.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiffs/Applicants have satisfied the legal threshold for the grant of interlocutory injunctive and preservatory orders
- 2.Whether the Defendants/Applicants have demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant the setting aside or variation of the interim orders issued on 30th October 2025
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for interlocutory injunction
Plaintiffs established a prima facie case with probability of success because the challenge to the root of title on grounds of fraud brings the dispute within Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown test as refined in Nguruman. Where a registered proprietor's root of title is under challenge, per Munyu Maina, the proprietor must prove the legality of acquisition beyond the instrument of title. The allegation of fraudulent duplication and subdivision shifted the burden to the Defendants to justify their root of title, an issue reserved for trial. This satisfied the prima facie stage.
Irreparable injury and adequacy of damages
Land is unique and irreplaceable; continued alienation amid proliferating titles would render damages inadequate and the suit nugatory
Relying on Kenleb Cons Ltd, the court found that land by its nature cannot be adequately compensated by damages. The property had already been subdivided and transferred to multiple third parties, and further dealings would create an irreversible chain of transactions involving innocent purchasers, complicating or defeating final adjudication.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo pending hearing
Applying Suleiman v Amboseli Resort, the court opted for the lower risk of injustice. Preservation halts further transactions rather than dispossessing current occupants, since notices had already been issued to interested third parties through newspapers of national circulation.
Whether to set aside or vary the interim orders of 30th October 2025
An interlocutory order may only be discharged on material non-disclosure, misrepresentation or change of circumstances, none of which was demonstrated
Relying on Uhuru Highway Development Ltd, the court held that its inherent jurisdiction to discharge an interlocutory injunction must be exercised judicially. The Defendants merely reargued contested matters of title that are properly reserved for trial, and thus failed to justify variation of the orders of 30th October 2025.
Legal principles established
#- In land disputes where the root of title is challenged, a registered proprietor must prove the legality of how the title was acquired beyond mere production of the title instrument
- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership but may be challenged on grounds of fraud or where acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2025 is allowed in terms of prayers seeking preservatory and injunctive relief
- 2.Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, and persons claiming under them from trespassing, selling, transferring, disposing of or dealing with land parcel Kajiado/Ntashart/511 and all subdivisions emanating therefrom pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.The 3rd Defendant directed to provide complete records relating to the suit property, including all subdivisions and corresponding green cards
- 4.Plaintiffs granted leave to publish notices in two newspapers of national circulation inviting persons holding titles derived from the suit property to participate in the proceedings (if not already done)
- 5.The Officer Commanding Station, Kibiku/Ngong Police Station, to facilitate enforcement of the orders
- 6.The 1st and 2nd Defendants' Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2025 is dismissed
- 7.Costs of both applications shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunctive and preservatory orders (statutory basis not expressly cited in the ruling)
Relief refused
#Defendants' application to stay, vary or set aside the interim orders of 30th October 2025
No material non-disclosure, misrepresentation or change in circumstances demonstrated; their arguments reiterate matters properly reserved for trial
Costs
The Costs of both applications shall be in the cause.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
An order of temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, and any persons claiming under them from trespassing, selling, transferring, disposing of, or in any manner dealing with land parcel Kajiado/Ntashart/511 and all subdivisions emanating therefrom pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants’ Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2025 is hereby dismissed.
The Costs of both applications shall be in the cause.
When a registered proprietor’s root of title is under challenge, it is not suficient to dangle the instrument of title… the registered proprietor must go beyond the instrument and prove the legality of how he acquired the title.
The court in responding to prayers for interlocutory relief should always opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice.
The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the subject matter in situ until the suit is heard and determined.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment repeatedly misspells 'Plaintiffs' as 'Plaintifis' and 'sufficient' as 'suficient' throughout the text, indicating a text extraction or transcription defect
Paragraph 3 describes the Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2025 as filed by the '1st and 2nd Plaintifis' while paragraph 2 refers to it as the application by 'the Plaintifis/Applicants' - the identity of the applicants is stated inconsistently, though this appears to be drafting rather than substantive contradiction
The ruling is dated 30th April 2026, while a Further Affidavit is recorded as sworn on 19th January 2026 and the application as dated 29th September 2025; the chronology is internally consistent but the judgment bears a future-dated delivery relative to typical filing timelines - no substantive contradiction identified
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dhanani & another v Musei & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E127 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2547 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2547/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.