Ethics and Anti- Corruption Commission v Kaisha & 2 others (Land Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5188 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court froze all dealings with disputed government housing land because its original allocation may have been unlawful, blocking sale or transfer until trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - both parties confirmed the property was originally Government land reserved for civil servants' residential housing, so the lawfulness of the deceased's acquisition of title was a live triable issue.
The applicant, through its forensic investigator, averred that the suit property was reserved as Government housing for public use and was irregularly allocated by the 3rd respondent to the deceased in 1994. The respondents themselves admitted in their replying affidavit that the property had been reserved for Government residential housing but contended the deceased qualified for allocation as a senior public officer. Given this common position, the central issue became the lawfulness of the deceased's title, which persuaded the court that a prima facie case with chances of success had been established.
Whether irreparable injury was demonstrated and where the balance of convenience lay
The respondents hold a lease and the possibility of disposal was apparent; the Government having demonstrated ownership and possession, the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.
The court found that the respondents hold a lease over the suit property and that the possibility of disposal was apparent, meaning the applicant stood to suffer injury not adequately compensable in damages if the land were alienated before trial. As to the balance of convenience, the Government had demonstrated ownership and possession of the property, so preserving the status quo by restraining dealings pending trial tilted the balance in favour of the applicant.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience.
- The three Giella conditions are distinct, sequential and mandatory hurdles that cannot be leap-frogged.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents, by themselves, their agents, servants and/or assigns, from alienating, selling, charging or further charging, leasing, developing, sub-dividing, transferring, wasting, disposing or in any other manner dealing with land parcel Kakamega Municipality Block III/218 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.The costs of the application to be borne by the 1st and 2nd respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (inherent injunctive jurisdiction over land in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ethics and Anti- Corruption Commission v Kaisha & 2 others (Land Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5188 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 20th May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5188/eng@2026-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.