Gichuki & 2 others (Suing as Trustees of Promised Land Githurai Self Help Group) v Kilonzo & another (Environment and Land Case 132 ‘A’ of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3893 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Machakos Environment and Land Court froze the situation on the land as it is, but refused to lift the restriction on the title until the full case is heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants met the Giella v Cassman Brown test for a temporary injunction
The court found the application merited only to the extent of preserving the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit, since it had not interrogated the documents and chronology of events
The court applied the settled triple test: prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience, each a sequential hurdle. While the applicants asserted registered proprietorship and that the restriction imperilled issuance of titles to 73 members, the court had not had the opportunity to interrogate the annexures and the history of events leading to the current situation on the ground. It therefore opted for the lower risk of injustice by maintaining the status quo rather than granting the substantive relief sought.
Whether a mandatory injunction to remove the registered restriction could issue at the interlocutory stage
No - such orders are granted only in clear-cut cases and the removal of the restriction at the interim stage would be premature
Relying on Lucy Wangui Gachara v Minudi Okemba Lore and the persuasive Indian authority of Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd v Haro Chand Sachdeva, the court held that temporary mandatory injunctions issue only in rare cases with compelling circumstances, and only to restore rather than establish a new state of things. Since the removal of the restriction would effectively amount to final relief before a full hearing, the court declined that prayer.
Legal principles established
#- Mandatory injunctions are granted at the interlocutory stage only in clear-cut cases and not where the court would thereby determine the dispute at a summary hearing
- Where the court cannot fully interrogate the documents and history of events at the interlocutory stage, preserving the status quo is the lower-risk course pending trial
Court orders
#- 1.That status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.That parties comply with Order 11 and set down the matter for hearing
- 3.That costs be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 93(1) and (2) of the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160), Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Sections 68-78 of the Land Registration Act 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gichuki & 2 others (Suing as Trustees of Promised Land Githurai Self Help Group) v Kilonzo & another (Environment and Land Case 132 ‘A’ of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3893 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 28th November 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3893/eng@2026-06-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.