Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherELC LC No. E588 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 5150 (KLR)

Gathiru v Wanjiru (Land Case E588 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5150 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 August 2026
MCMbogo C.G.
2,496 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court paused an eviction case for 60 days so a property owner and occupier can try to settle out of court first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff/applicant, registered owner of Nairobi/Block/15/298 (formerly LR No. 330/612) along Argwings Kodhek Road, Nairobi, moved the court by notice of motion dated 20th November 2025 under Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 152A, 152B and 152E of the Land Act, seeking eviction of the defendant/respondent within seven days, a temporary injunction restraining her from entering or occupying the suit property pending the main suit, costs, and police assistance in enforcement. He asserted that the property was declared exclusively his in matrimonial proceedings (Matrimonial Cause No. E003 of 2021, Nyeri), that the respondent was a trespasser, and that unpaid rates of about Kshs. 6.4 million exposed the property to auction. The respondent countered that the division of matrimonial property remained unresolved on appeal before the Court of Appeal in Nyeri (COACA E168 of 2025), for which leave to file out of time had been granted, that she had lived on the property since 2012 with their son, had contributed to its maintenance, and that the true rates arrears were lower. The court, framed the sole issue as whether the application had merit, applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles as elaborated in Mrao and Nguruman. Noting the applicant's registered ownership and the finding that the property was not matrimonial property, but also the pending appeal and the parties' willingness to explore settlement, the court declined to determine the motion on its merits. It directed the parties to pursue alternative dispute resolution within 60 days, preserved the status quo in possession, held the motion's determination in abeyance, and made no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether eviction and temporary injunction orders should issue against the respondent

Holding

The court did not determine the motion on its merits; it deferred determination to allow out-of-court settlement while preserving the status quo in possession

Reasoning

Although the applicant is the registered owner and a court found the suit property not to be matrimonial property, there is a pending appeal before the Court of Appeal. The court considered the parties' prior marital relationship, the respondent's residence on the property, the applicant's offer of alternative accommodation and the respondent's willingness to settle, and found ADR appropriate with the property preserved through status quo pending resolution.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • The principles for granting an injunction are those in Giella v Cassman Brown: prima facie case, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience
  • Where an appeal is pending and parties are open to settlement, the court may preserve the status quo and direct parties to alternative dispute resolution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Parties granted 60 days to engage in out-of-court settlement
  2. 2.Determination of the notice of motion dated 20th November, 2025 held in abeyance pending out-of-court settlement
  3. 3.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Land ActSections 152A, 152B and 152E

Cases cited (3)

  • Giella V Cassman Brown & Company Ltd
    1973 EA 358
  • Mrao V First American Bank of Kenya Limited
    (2003) eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited V Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 152A, 152B and 152E of the Land Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gathiru v Wanjiru (Land Case E588 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5150 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LC No. E588 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5150/eng@2026-08-04

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