Bana v Maalim alias Omar Ahmed Mohamed (Environment and Land Case E130 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4781 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court froze property dealings and ordered sale proceeds held in an escrow account because an investor proved a valid development partnership.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case with likelihood of success
The Applicant demonstrated a prima facie case based on the Share Development Agreement dated 7th February 2022 under which he invested Kshs. 40,000,000/= for a 50:50 profit share; the Respondent did not deny the agreement's existence.
The court found that the parties entered a Share Development Agreement for development of the suit property into apartments, a penthouse and shops with equal profit sharing. The Respondent's replying affidavit disputed the amounts contributed but did not deny the existence of the partnership agreement. Combined with the risk of losing the investment, this satisfied the first and second Giella limbs, and the balance of convenience favoured the Applicant.
Irreparable loss and balance of convenience
The Applicant would suffer irreparable loss by losing his investment in the project, and the balance of convenience favours him.
The court held that without an injunction the Applicant would lose his investment of Kshs. 40,000,000/= in the development, which cannot adequately be compensated. On the third Giella limb, the court found the inconvenience of refusal would fall on the Applicant, tipping the balance of convenience in his favour and justifying grant of the restraining and preservation orders sought.
Legal principles established
#- The principles for an interlocutory injunction are the Giella v Cassman Brown test: prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience if in doubt.
- A party who does not deny the existence of a partnership/share development agreement, where the applicant has invested substantial sums, demonstrates a prima facie case with a likelihood of success.
Court orders
#- 1.Orders sought in the Notice of Motion dated 10th November 2025 granted, restraining the Respondent from dealing with units on Mombasa/Block/XVII/IIIO and from interfering with the Applicant's proprietary and contractual interests pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.The Applicant and the Respondent to open an escrow account in a bank of repute in the names of the advocates for the two parties and deposit the proceeds of sale therein pending hearing and determination of the case
- 3.Matter to proceed for hearing on 19th December 2026
- 4.Mention on 29th September 2026
- 5.Costs be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit property Mombasa/Block/XVII/IIIO (interlocutory application in a pending main suit); no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bana v Maalim alias Omar Ahmed Mohamed (Environment and Land Case E130 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4781 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 10th November 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4781/eng@2026-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.