Owala & 2 others v Shajanand Holdings Ltd (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4662 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kisumu court allowed a licensed quarry to keep operating near homes but banned blasting within 30 metres of the applicants' homestead pending full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
Applicants failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success.
The Applicants' own evidence (County Mining Office Inspection Report) showed their houses were approximately 300 metres from the blasting site, ten times the 30-metre radius alleged, and the report did not attribute the cracks to blasting, instead recommending a government structural engineer assess causation. The Respondent held valid explosives licences, NEMA Excessive Vibration Permits and accepted environmental audit reports, attracting a presumption of regularity that could not be displaced by untested affidavit evidence.
Irreparable injury and causation of damage
Applicants failed to demonstrate actual, substantial and demonstrable irreparable injury not compensable in damages.
The inspection report showed the last blasting occurred in September 2024, nearly seventeen months before filing, so the apprehension of immediate danger was speculative. Any structural damage ultimately proven at trial is capable of scientific quantification and can be adequately compensated by damages payable by the Respondent as a going concern.
Balance of convenience
Balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo of licensed operations, conditional on no blasting within 30 metres of the Applicants' homestead.
Halting the Respondent's licensed operations would cause immediate financial losses and job losses, whereas the Applicants had co-existed with the quarry since 2004 at a distance of 300 metres. The Respondent had itself conceded not to operate within 30 metres of the homestead pending the application.
Ancillary orders for NEMA and structural assessments
Refused as premature at interlocutory stage.
The court viewed the requested NEMA assessment and appointment of a structural engineer as relating to the ultimate reliefs sought in the main suit and therefore best addressed at the case-conferencing stage.
Legal principles established
#- A statutory licence or regulatory permit carries a presumption of legality and regularity, and a court will not suspend operations under such approvals unless the licences are directly challenged or set aside.
- The Giella tripartite test conditions are distinct hurdles to be overcome in sequence; failure at the first stage disposes of the application.
- Causation of alleged structural damage cannot rest on speculation; without a qualified expert report the claim remains speculative.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction restraining the Respondent, whether by its agents, employees, and/or contractors, from excavating or digging out hard rocks through blasting within a radius of thirty (30) meters from the Applicants' homestead on land parcel known as Kisumu/Kadongo/1283 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2.The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40, 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act; EMCA CAP 387
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Owala & 2 others v Shajanand Holdings Ltd (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4662 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC E008 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4662/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.