Allibhai (Suing as administrators of the Estate of Kurbanali Allibhai Noor Mohamed) v Rivatex East Africa Ltd (Environment and Land Case E086 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4043 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court blocked Rivatex from leasing disputed land to third parties until a survey settles who truly owns the encroached portion.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established for the injunction against leasing Block 12/164
Yes - the Survey of Kenya Ground Status Report confirmed that Block 12/164 was an amalgamation of Blocks 12/159 and 12/160 belonging to the Plaintiff's deceased father, supporting the claim of excess occupation beyond the 10 acres actually acquired
The Gazette Notices showed intention to acquire 56.5 acres but intention to take possession of only 10 acres, with no notice for the remaining 46.5 acres. The Ground Status Report from the Survey of Kenya, the agency mandated over boundaries, confirmed parcel 164 is an amalgamation of parcels 159 and 160 which belonged to the deceased. At the interlocutory stage this established a prima facie case without delving into the merits.
Whether irreparable harm not compensable by damages was demonstrated
Yes, as regards the land - a 21-year lease would introduce a non-party with acquired rights into the disputed land, requiring eviction proceedings if the Plaintiff succeeds
The purported strategic partner was not revealed nor joined to the suit, and no signed lease or change of name was attached to prove the lease. A lease of 21 years would introduce rights over disputed land and necessitate further eviction proceedings, constituting significant and/or irreparable harm. However, the Plaintiff had no interest in the textile mill business itself, so prayer (4) could not issue.
Whether a joint survey should be ordered
Yes - the Ground Status Report was prepared without notice to the Defendant, an affected party under Section 19(2) of the Land Registration Act, and a survey would assist the court conclusively
Section 19(2) of the Land Registration Act mandates the Land Registrar to deal with boundary issues and notify affected parties. The Defendant, as registered owner of one parcel, was an affected person but received no notice of the earlier survey visit. Since the matter had not proceeded to pre-trial directions or hearing, no prejudice would arise from ordering a joint survey by surveyors appointed by both parties.
Whether the claim is barred by limitation under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act
No - the Plaintiff does not seek to reverse the 1975 acquisition but only to recover excess land occupied beyond what was properly acquired and compensated
The Defendant argued the suit sought to reverse an acquisition perfected 50 years ago. The court held the argument unsubstantiated because the Plaintiff seeks only recovery of excess land occupied beyond the properly acquired and compensated portion. Further, time runs from discovery of the encroachment upon obtaining the surveyor's report in May 2025.
Legal principles established
#- The conditions for grant of an interlocutory injunction are a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience
- Damages are not an automatic remedy and cannot be a substitute for protection of a crystallized right by injunction
- A plaintiff recovering excess land occupied beyond a compulsory acquisition is not statute-barred, as he is not seeking to reverse the acquisition
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent, its agents, servants and/or employees from leasing out Eldoret Municipality Block 12/164 (which has encroached onto Eldoret Municipality Block 12/160) to third parties pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.A joint survey to be conducted by surveyors appointed by the Plaintiff/Applicant and the Defendant/Respondent to establish the boundaries of Eldoret Municipality Block 12/160 and Block 12/164
- 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (interlocutory application under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Allibhai (Suing as administrators of the Estate of Kurbanali Allibhai Noor Mohamed) v Rivatex East Africa Ltd (Environment and Land Case E086 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4043 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 12th September, 2025 (Eldoret). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4043/eng@2026-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.