Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedMRG ELCLC E045 OF 2025· [2026] KEELC 4150 (KLR)

Karanja v Kuria & another (Land Case E045 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4150 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 June 2026
457 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Murang'a court blocked defendants from entering or harvesting napier grass on two land parcels until the case is decided, and ordered police to enforce compliance.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Murang'a (M.N. Gicheru, J) on a notice of motion dated 9 April 2026 brought under Articles 40, 48 and 159 of the Constitution, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act and Section 152E of the Land Act. The Plaintiff, the duly appointed administratrix of the estate of the late Jefina Maina Karanja, the registered proprietor of the suit parcels L.R. No. T.325/Fort Hall Loc.1/Gakira and L.R. No. 162/Fort Hall Loc.12 Sub-Loc.1 Map 14, sought a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from trespassing, cutting or carrying away napier grass or otherwise interfering with the land pending hearing of the suit, an order directing the OCS Kangema Police Station to provide security and ensure compliance, and costs in the cause. The motion was served but unopposed: the 1st Defendant obtained and never used time to file a replying affidavit and later sought an out-of-court settlement; the 2nd Defendant filed no response. Holding the motion fair and just, the court allowed it in terms of prayers 3 and 4, granting the injunction and the police security order, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to grant a temporary injunction in an unopposed application

Holding

The court allowed the motion in terms of prayers 3 and 4 because it was unopposed and fair and just

Reasoning

The Plaintiff, as administratrix of the registered proprietor's estate, alleged unlawful trespass and interference with the suit parcels. The motion was served but the 1st Defendant, though granted time, filed no replying affidavit, and the 2nd Defendant filed no response. With no opposition and the interests of justice favouring maintenance of the status quo, the court granted the injunction and the security order, with costs in the cause.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An unopposed motion that is fair and just may be allowed in terms of the prayers sought

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A temporary order of injunction issued restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants and any person claiming through them, from trespassing into, entering, remaining upon, cutting, harvesting or carrying away napier grass from, or in any way interfering with L.R. No. T.325/FORT HALL LOC.1/GAKIRA and L.R. No. 162/FORT HALL LOC.12 SUB-LOC.1 MAP 14, pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.The Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Kangema Police Station directed to provide security and ensure compliance with the orders of the Court
  3. 3.Costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 40, 48 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 152E of the Land Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karanja v Kuria & another (Land Case E045 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4150 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MRG ELCLC E045 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4150/eng@2026-06-30

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