Wairimu & another (Suing as the administrators of the Estate of Regina Wairimu - Deceased) v Nuni (Land Case E020 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2737 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court cancelled a land injunction because the applicants hid another case and couldn't prove they actually occupied the property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction
No prima facie case established; serious doubts emerged regarding the Plaintiffs' assertion of possession while the Defendant demonstrated possession, control and development
The Court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles. The Plaintiffs alleged continued occupation and management of tenants and developments but produced no photographs, tenancy records or rent schedules. Conversely, the Defendant exhibited development approvals, evidence of excavation and payment of rates, none of which was substantially controverted.
Whether material non-disclosure disentitled the Plaintiffs to continued ex parte relief
Yes. The Plaintiffs failed to disclose the existence of Nairobi MCELC No. E1146 of 2025, in which similar orders had allegedly been obtained over the same property
A party approaching the Court for ex parte relief is under a strict duty of full and frank disclosure including facts adverse to its case. The Court relied on Bahadurali Ebrahim Shamji v Al Noor Jamal & 2 Others, holding that even concealed facts that may not have changed the outcome justify discharge of ex parte orders to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
Whether the interim orders of 21st January 2026 ought to be discharged
Yes; they were discharged and set aside
Combining the material non-disclosure, the doubts over the Plaintiffs' possession and the fact that the orders displaced the Defendant's established possession, the Court found the ex parte orders altered rather than preserved the status quo and were highly prejudicial. Order 40 Rule 7 empowers discharge, variation or setting aside of injunction orders on application by a dissatisfied party.
Legal principles established
#- A litigant seeking ex parte relief must make full and candid disclosure of all material facts, including facts adverse to his case; failure disentitles the party to equitable relief
- Ex parte interim orders that alter rather than preserve the prevailing status quo ought not to stand
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2026 be and is hereby allowed
- 2.The interim orders of injunction issued by this Court on 21st January 2026 be and are hereby discharged and set aside
- 3.The matter shall be set down for hearing on a priority basis and the main suit shall be heard and determined within sixty (60) days from the date hereof
- 4.Costs of both applications shall abide the outcome of the main suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (inherent power and injunction jurisdiction of the ELC)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wairimu & another (Suing as the administrators of the Estate of Regina Wairimu - Deceased) v Nuni (Land Case E020 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2737 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2737/eng@2026-05-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.