Shah & 42 others v Denko Properties Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4031 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiffs should be directed to pay water bills to the 1st Defendant for water consumed on their plots pending hearing and determination of the suit (interlocutory mandatory injunction)
- 2.Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, sued in their personal capacities, should be struck out from the suit
- 3.Whether the issue of payment of water bills is res judicata per the judgment in Small Claims Case No. E313 of 2022
- 4.Whether the contract between the parties was rightfully terminated for breach
Key legal issues
#Whether an interlocutory mandatory injunction could issue for payment of water bills
No. The court held the relief sought was in substance a mandatory/permanent injunction ordinarily grantable only after a full hearing, and no special circumstances or clear-cut case was demonstrated.
The court applied the settled principle that mandatory injunctions at the interlocutory stage are granted only in clear cases with special circumstances. It distinguished interim injunctions, which protect the subject matter, from permanent injunctions, which determine rights after evidence. Whether the contract was rightfully terminated and whether the water-bill issue was res judicata (per Small Claims Case No. E313 of 2022) were matters for the full hearing.
Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants should be struck out for being sued in their personal capacities
No. The court found the question premature at the interlocutory stage, since the Respondents allege the 2nd and 3rd Defendants personally procured and warranted the contracts.
The Applicants argued the contracts were with the 1st Defendant only and that the Plaintiffs never sought to lift the corporate veil. The Respondents countered that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants collectively procured execution of the contracts and personally warranted performance. Resolving this factual dispute would amount to granting final relief at an interlocutory stage, which the court declined to do.
Legal principles established
#- An interlocutory mandatory injunction will only be granted in the absence of special circumstances where the case is clear-cut
- A temporary mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application is granted only in rare cases with compelling circumstances, and only to restore, not establish, a state of things
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 21st August 2026 is dismissed as not merited
- 2.Parties are to comply with Order 11 and set the matter down for hearing
- 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction under Section 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 63, and Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Relief refused
#Order directing Plaintiffs/Respondents to pay water bills to the 1st Defendant pending hearing and determination of the suit
An interlocutory mandatory injunction requires special circumstances and clear-cut cases; the issues of rightful termination and res judicata can only be determined at full hearing
Striking out the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from the suit
Respondents contend the 2nd and 3rd Defendants personally procured and warranted performance of the contracts; striking out at the interlocutory stage would amount to granting final orders prematurely
Costs
Costs of the application to be in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In view of the foregoing, I find that the application is not merited and that parties are to comply with order 11 and set the matter down for hearing. Costs of the application to be in the cause. It is so ordered.
If a mandatory injunction has to be granted at all on interlocutory application, it is granted only to restore status quo and not to establish a new state of things.
save in the clearest of cases, the right of the parties to a fair and proper hearing of their dispute, entailing calling and cross-examination of witnesses must not be sacrificed or substituted by a summary hearing.
Issues in the judgment
#The application is dated 21st August 2026 but the judgment was delivered on 2nd July 2026, so the application would post-date the judgment
The grounds use 'Plaintifis/Applicants' where 'Plaintiffs/Respondents' is plainly meant, conflating the parties' labels
The judgment does not state the case number or the name of the court; the station (Machakos) appears only in the delivery clause
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shah & 42 others v Denko Properties Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4031 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 21st August 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4031/eng@2026-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.