Maina & 12 others v County Government of Laikipia & another (Land Case Petition E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4353 (KLR)

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Gideon Sitelu Konchellah v Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli, the judge held that a court of law has a duty to look at what the application is about and what it seeks, and to be satisfied that, prima facie and with no objection, the application is meritorious and the prayers may be granted before issuing orders.

Following Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwendwa Kithinji and Bia Tosha Distributors Ltd v Kenya Breweries Ltd, the court held that conservatory orders facilitate ordered functioning within public agencies and uphold the adjudicatory authority of the court in the public interest, and are not assessed on private-law criteria such as irreparable harm or probability of success.

The allocation letters bore the heading 'Harmonization/Relocation of Hawkers' and provided for standard kiosks on a temporary basis, with no documents varying the tenure from temporary to permanent. Occupation must therefore remain in tandem with the planning policies of the County of Laikipia, and the petitioners are in pursuit of their own private interests.

The court noted that the crux of the dispute is the development approvals issued to the 2nd respondent, which fall under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019 and its regulations, including bodies such as County Physical Land Use and Planning Consultative Forums with statutory mandate to guide counties on planning. The court declined to determine at this stage whether kiosk operations should continue under that framework.

The eviction notices availed by the petitioners described them as illegally and wrongfully occupying the land 'without any colour of right, authority or permission', raising the possibility of private land occupation. The court also noted that the persons named in the notices were not the petitioners, deferring both issues to trial.