Kariuki v Mburu (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2744 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case / serious issue to be tried
The applicant established a prima facie case: the lease had expired and a lawful termination notice had issued which the respondent had not challenged in law.
The court found no dispute that the lease had expired and that a legal termination notice had been issued which the respondent never challenged. On the Mrao definition, the applicant's right to the property was threatened by the respondent's continued occupation without a valid tenancy, calling for an explanation from the respondent, who offered none.
Irreparable harm and balance of convenience
Damages would not adequately compensate the applicant and the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction, limited to one year.
Applying Nguruman, the court held the respondent's continued acts would subject the applicant to immeasurable loss and damage. Weighing the inconvenience of refusing the injunction against that of granting it, the court found the balance favoured the applicant, and granted the injunction for a fixed period of one year pending determination of the suit.
Property in danger of being wasted or damaged under Section 63(e) CPA and Order 40 Rule 1
The suit property was in danger of being wasted, damaged or interfered with by the respondent, justifying a temporary injunction.
The court recited the statutory basis permitting injunction where property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated. The applicant's deposition of forced entry, destruction of electrical installation valued at Kshs. 300,000, and locking of the premises established such danger, warranting orders to stay and prevent further interference pending disposal of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- A proprietor of land has constitutional and statutory protection of the right to quiet enjoyment, use and possession of the land.
- The three Giella criteria are distinct hurdles to be surmounted sequentially in every temporary injunction application.
- A tenant has no justification to remain on rented premises in the absence of a valid lease or tenancy agreement.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction granted restraining the respondent from trespassing on, entering, laying claim to, occupying, damaging, destroying or in any manner interfering with Parcel No. 2116/827 Kitale Municipality Block 5/31
- 2.The temporary injunction to last for one (1) year from the date of the ruling
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki v Mburu (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2744 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 10/2/2026 in ELC suit, Kitale (suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2744/eng@2026-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.