Nderitu v Kironji & another (Sued as Representatives/Trustee of Life Transformation Centre) (Environment and Land Case E142 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 352 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court stopped dealings on one plot but not the other, showing Kenyan courts grant injunctions only where money cannot fix the harm.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a temporary injunction should issue over LR. NO. Bahati/Kabatini Block1/10568
Refused; the claim over that parcel is quantifiable in damages and the balance of convenience favours the respondents
The court found that the dispute over parcel 10568 could be valued in monetary terms up to the last cent by reference to clause 1(c) and (d) of the Addendum. The applicant neither alleged nor proved on a balance of probabilities that the respondents would be unable to compensate him for any loss. Since damages would be an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, no injunction could issue over that parcel.
Whether a temporary injunction should issue over LR. NO. Bahati/Kabatini Block1/10567
Granted; a prima facie case with likelihood of success was established over that parcel, a position the respondents' counsel appeared to concede in submissions
Applying the Giella principles, the court found a prima facie case with a probability of success in respect of parcel 10567. The respondents' counsel appeared to concede this in their submissions. The court therefore allowed the application only to the extent that the temporary injunction would relate solely to that parcel and restrained the defendants and their agents from dealing adversely with it pending determination of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for a temporary injunction must show a prima facie case with probability of success; the injunction will not normally issue unless damages would be inadequate; if in doubt, the balance of convenience applies
- Where the loss claimed is measurable in monetary terms and there is no proof the respondent cannot pay, irreparable harm is not established
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, employees, servants, representatives and persons claiming under them from selling, charging, leasing, trespassing onto, remaining on, further developing or dealing adversely with LR. NO. Bahati/Kabatini Block1/10567 measuring approximately 0.0470 Ha
- 2.The temporary orders relate only to parcel number 10567 and not to parcel 10568
- 3.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nderitu v Kironji & another (Sued as Representatives/Trustee of Life Transformation Centre) (Environment and Land Case E142 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 352 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/352/eng@2025-12-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.