Khan v Housing Schemes Ltd & 3 others (Land Case E369 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4151 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi land court has protected a buyer's possession of a Ngara property and frozen the title until the ownership dispute is fully heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff/applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - the uncontroverted sale agreement dated 16th April 2003, proof of payment and letters demonstrated an identifiable interest in the suit property requiring protection
The applicant relied on a sale agreement dated 16th April 2003 between his late father and Mrs. Shakuntala Aggarwal, proof of payment and letters dated 24th March 2003, none of which were controverted by the 1st defendant. The grounds of opposition filed in succession cause no. 264 of 1994 also admitted that fiat no. 5 did not form part of the estate of the late Chandrakant Gheewala. Together these demonstrated an identifiable interest warranting protection pending trial.
Whether the plaintiff/applicant would suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages
Yes - there is likely harm which money may not adequately remedy, including denial of registration of the sub-lease and changes to the development on the property
The applicant's requests for registration of a sub-lease bore no fruit, with proceedings in the succession cause used as the reason for non-registration. The expiry of the lease was held to be an issue for trial since the 1st defendant's letters showed an intention to renew and extend leases. The court found likely harm that money could not adequately remedy, justifying the equitable remedy of temporary injunction.
Whether the pending succession proceedings render the application sub judice or an abuse of court process
No - the court would not interfere with the family division proceedings, but the present suit and application were properly before it
The 1st defendant argued the application was an abuse of process given similar applications in succession cause no. 264 of 1994. The court acknowledged the active litigation before the High Court family division concerning the estate of Chandrakant Gheewala but declined to interfere with those proceedings, confining itself to protecting the applicant's identifiable interest in fiat no. 5 for purposes of this suit.
Legal principles established
#- The Giella v Cassman Brown principles govern the grant of interlocutory injunctions: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages, and balance of convenience in case of doubt.
- A prima facie case requires demonstration of an infringement of a right and probability of success at trial, a standard higher than an arguable case.
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd defendant/respondent to supply certified copies of the green card record of LR no. 209/4796/4 Nairobi from manual or electronic records within 15 days
- 2.Temporary injunction restraining the 1st defendant/respondent from evicting, entering, demolishing, taking possession of, alienating, transferring, leasing, charging or disposing of fiat no. 5 on LR 209/4796/4 Desai Road, Ngara, Nairobi, or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof, pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 3.Order restraining the 1st defendant/respondent from harassing, disturbing, annoying or provoking the plaintiff, or blocking easement rights to LR 209/4796/4, pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 4.The Officer Commanding Parklands Police Station directed to ensure compliance with the injunction orders
- 5.The 3rd defendant/respondent restrained from registration or change of registration in the ownership status, user, sub-division, sub-leases or charge of the title of LR no. 209/4796/4, Nairobi, or any extension or renewal thereof, pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 6.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 3(1) & 19(1) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Order 40 Rules 1, 2 & 4 and Order 51 Rules 1, 3 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Khan v Housing Schemes Ltd & 3 others (Land Case E369 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4151 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4151/eng@2026-07-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.