Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELCLC. NO. E138 OF 2025· [2026] KEELC 3924 (KLR)

Munywoki & another v Matungulu Farmers Company Ltd & 3 others (Land Case 138 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3924 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
23 June 2026
NMN.A. Matheka
1,357 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an ex parte-originated Notice of Motion dated 18th November 2025 in Environment and Land Court Suit No. E138 of 2025 at Machakos, brought under Order 40 Rule 1(a) and (b) and Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The Plaintiff, claiming to be a lawful shareholder of Plot No. 189 within Matungulu Farmers Company Limited Farm in Ndithini Sub-County, Machakos, occupied since the mid-1970s, sought temporary injunctions restraining the Defendants and their agents from entering, occupying, trespassing on or interfering with his quiet possession of the plot pending hearing of the application and of the suit, plus an order directing the OCS Ndithini Police Station to ensure compliance. The Plaintiff alleged that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants, in collusion and conspiracy with the 1st Defendant company officials, had trespassed on his portion, tilling, cultivating, clearing bushes and committing acts of waste. Although served, the Respondents filed no response, leaving the application undefended. In an extempore ruling, N.A. Matheka J restated the settled Giella v Cassman Brown principles as elaborated in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai, Amir Suleiman v Amboseli Resort and Robert Mugo wa Karanja v Ecobank. The court found the annexed documents, including a 1985 unpaid survey fees list and photographs, insufficient to establish a prima facie case since there was no survey establishing trespass or its extent, and held that the risk of injustice favoured withholding the injunction until all documents and the chronology of events could be interrogated at trial. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs, it being undefended. The suit remains pending for determination on its merits.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction

Holding

The Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case on the documents adduced

Reasoning

The Plaintiff relied on a shareholder claim to Plot No. 189 and an annexure titled 'Matungulu Farmers Co. Ltd unpaid survey fees as at 31st December 1985', together with photographs of alleged acts of waste. The court found these documents insufficient because there was no survey establishing the alleged trespass or its extent. Without establishing the alleged infringement of the claimed right, the first of the three sequential Giella hurdles was not surmounted.

p. 6
02

Whether the risk of injustice favoured granting or withholding the injunction

Holding

The court was convinced there was a greater risk in granting the temporary injunction than in withholding it pending the hearing of the suit on its merits

Reasoning

Applying the principle that the court should opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice, the court noted it had not had the opportunity to interrogate all potentially relevant documents or the annexures, including any history and chronology of events leading to the situation on the ground. On that incomplete evidential picture, granting injunctive relief carried the greater risk.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must sequentially surmount three distinct hurdles: establish a prima facie case, demonstrate irreparable injury, and show the balance of convenience lies in his favour
  • A prima facie case in civil proceedings is one in which, on the material presented, the court concludes that a legal right has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party
  • Irreparable injury is injury that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages, and a prima facie case alone is not sufficient; the applicant must show no other remedy is available
  • The balance of convenience is really a balance of inconvenience; the Plaintiff must show that the inconvenience caused to him if the injunction is withheld would be greater than that caused to the Defendant if it is granted
  • In responding to interlocutory injunctive relief, the court should always opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice
  • Under Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a temporary injunction requires proof that the disputed property is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated, or that a party threatens to remove or dispose of it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 18th November 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs, the application having been undefended
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land (Plot No. 189, Matungulu Farmers Company Limited Farm, Ndithini Sub-County, Machakos); application brought under Order 40 Rule 1(a) and (b) and Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Munywoki & another v Matungulu Farmers Company Ltd & 3 others (Land Case 138 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3924 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC. NO. E138 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3924/eng@2026-06-23

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.