Mwambi Investments Limited v Turbisalam Company Ltd
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court blocked a landowner from obstructing a neighbour's access road, recognising that 20+ years of open use can create a permanent legal right of way.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - the Plaintiff demonstrated an arguable claim on the use of the alleged access road warranting investigation at trial.
The court noted little dispute over the physical existence of the access route; the dispute is over its legal characterisation. Competing survey reports raise substantive issues of fact and law resolvable only at full hearing. The court could not make definitive findings without conducting a mini-trial, but found the prescriptive easement claim arguable under section 32(1)(c) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
Whether irreparable harm was demonstrated
Yes - the obstruction deprived the Plaintiff, its tenants and visitors of reasonable access, and the undisputed evidence showed the alternative route traverses riparian, flood-prone land.
The Plaintiff deponed that the disputed road is the principal means of ingress and egress, that tenants threatened to vacate with some already having done so, and that the alternative route is unsuitable and insecure. The court held the critical averment about the alternative route was not disputed, so irreparable harm incapable of compensation in damages was demonstrated.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It favours preserving the disputed access road pending trial.
Preservation maintains the substratum of the dispute, safeguards the rights asserted by both parties, and ensures the final determination of the suit is not rendered nugatory. The court therefore found it just and equitable to maintain the prevailing position until the issues are conclusively determined at trial.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 32(1)(c) of the Limitation of Actions Act, an easement enjoyed peaceably, openly, as of right and without interruption for 20 years becomes absolute and indefeasible.
- The Giella requirements for interlocutory injunctions must be satisfied sequentially, as affirmed in Nguruman.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with, constructing on, blocking, or in any manner dealing with the access road serving L.R. No. 209/1916/8 and passing at the edge of LR No. 209/1916/1, pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.An order directing the Defendant to remove all obstructions placed on the said access road, pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.The Defendant to pay the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 28 of the Land Registration Act; Section 140 of the Land Act; Section 32 of the Limitation of Actions Act; Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwambi Investments Limited v Turbisalam Company Ltd", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. E182 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5716/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.