Iномва v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E105 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2839 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court blocked Nairobi Water from disconnecting a Pangani landlord's borehole, protecting water access for 200 residents pending appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Motion was incompetent for misdescribing the court as a Tribunal and citing wrong provisions
The defects were not fatal and did not render the application incompetent
The court held that the reference to a 'Tribunal' was a mere misdescription causing no prejudice. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, the court held that procedural provisions should not be interpreted as cast in stone and that citing a wrong provision is not fatal where the court has jurisdiction and the substance of the application is clear.
Whether a prima facie case was established for a temporary injunction pending appeal
A prima facie case was established
The Appellant deponed, without contradiction, that he is the proprietor of the suit property housing over 70 tenants and 200 residents dependent on the borehole. Despite paying his bills, the Respondent threatened disconnection, a position not denied. The court found a right to continued access to water under imminent threat of infringement.
Whether irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the injunction
Both limbs favoured the grant of the injunction
Disconnection would expose the Appellant and tenants to serious hardship and health risks not compensable by damages, given water's life-sustaining character. The balance of convenience tilted in the Appellant's favour because the prejudice from disconnection outweighed any inconvenience to the Respondent, who may pursue any alleged dues through lawful means.
Whether the court should make findings on the propriety of the trial court's striking out of the suit
The court refrained, reserving the jurisdictional question for the substantive appeal
The parties took opposed positions on whether the Magistrate properly declined jurisdiction and struck out the suit. The court held that the issue falls within the province of the substantive appeal, observing only that the appeal is not frivolous since it raises a substantive jurisdictional question.
Legal principles established
#- A failure to cite the correct provision of law, or citation of an incorrect provision, is not fatal where the court is otherwise seized of jurisdiction and the substance of the application is clear
- A mere misdescription of the court does not go to the substance of an application nor occasion prejudice
- Disconnection of water supply to a residential setting implicates public health and human dignity and cannot be adequately remedied by damages
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction restraining the Respondent, its servants, officers, employees, agents and/or assigns from accessing, disconnecting, removing, closing, trespassing onto, dealing with and/or in any other manner interfering with the Applicant's private Borehole and Meter Number 5184546 situated and installed in the property known as L.R No. 209/1674/1, Pangani Area, Nairobi County pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal
- 2.Costs to abide the appeal
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court
- Civil Suit No. E994 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction under Order 42 rule 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 3A, 63(e) and 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Iномва v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E105 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2839 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (appeal from Civil Suit No. E994 of 2024, Magistrates' Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2839/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.