Esmail v Cine Investment Ltd & 2 others (Land Acquisition Appeal E235 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3589 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
No prima facie case was established; the Appellant did not demonstrate any unmistakable right directly threatened by the act sought to be restrained
The Appellant argued that not being heard on the question of jurisdiction before the tribunal struck out her claim demonstrated infringement of her rights. Applying Mrao and Nguruman, the court held that the Appellant had not shown a clear and unmistakable right directly threatened by the compulsory acquisition process, and therefore had not discharged the first Giella limb.
Whether irreparable harm not compensable by damages had been demonstrated
No; the Appellant alleged loss to the public but none attributable to her personally
Once the applicant fails on the first limb, the second need not be established. In any event, the Appellant highlighted only loss to the public if compensation were paid to a non-existent entity, but showed no loss to herself as applicant that monetary damages could not compensate. Speculative injury does not satisfy the threshold under Nguruman.
Where the balance of convenience lies
The balance of convenience tilts against granting the injunction since the first two limbs failed
The court reiterated that the Giella limbs are sequential; having failed to establish a prima facie case and irreparable harm, the third limb could not rescue the application. The balance of convenience therefore favoured refusal of the injunction.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella conditions for an interlocutory injunction must be proved sequentially and failure to meet any one defeats the application
- A prima facie case requires more than an arguable case; the evidence must show an infringement of a right and probability of success at trial
- Where no prima facie case is established, the applicant need not establish irreparable harm, but any harm claimed must be personal and not speculative or public in nature
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 4th November 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
- On appeal from
- Tribunal (not named in judgment)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate/interlocutory jurisdiction over an appeal from a tribunal (specific statute not stated in judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Esmail v Cine Investment Ltd & 2 others (Land Acquisition Appeal E235 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3589 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3589/eng@2026-06-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.