Githuka v Githinji (Civil Case E366 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 195 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court issued restraining orders against both sides of a family property feud, but left the ownership question for a proper land or succession court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a restraining order against the defendant from threatening, visiting, contacting or communicating with him, his family members and employees
- 2.Whether the defendant's counterclaim for a permanent restraining order against the plaintiff, his agents, and an OCS compliance order should be granted
- 3.Whether the existence of an underlying property/succession dispute barred the granting of the mutual restraining orders
Key legal issues
#Entitlement to mutual restraining orders arising from inappropriate communication between litigants
The court granted the permanent restraining orders sought in both the plaint and the counterclaim against each party
The court found it common ground that the parties were engaged in a protracted property and/or succession dispute, and that in the course of that dispute they had inappropriately communicated with each other. Finding no defence to the counterclaim and seeing no reason to deny either side relief, the magistrate issued the restraining orders sought in the cross-suits, with police enforcement through the OCS Gilgil.
Limits of the magistrates' court's role in the underlying land/succession dispute
The court declined to pronounce on ownership or succession, expressly subordinating the restraining order touching LR No. 1317/195 to any order of an appropriate forum (ELC or Family Court)
Although several documents relating to the property and succession dispute were filed, the court held this was neither a land nor a family court. It therefore framed the restraining order relating to the property as subject to any contrary order issued in an appropriate forum, and made clear the order should not be treated as proof of ownership or a determination of the succession dispute.
Legal principles established
#- Where parties have inappropriately communicated with each other in the course of a dispute, the court may issue mutual restraining orders rather than deny either party relief
- A restraining order made in a civil suit is not a determination of property ownership or succession rights, and yields to any contrary order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in an appropriate forum
Court orders
#- 1.A permanent restraining order restraining the defendant from threatening to harm, visiting and or contacting the plaintiff, his family members and employees, communicating with him, his family members and employees
- 2.A permanent restraining order against the plaintiff restraining him from contacting the defendant's family members, herself, her children, her tenants, her agents situated at LR No. 1317/195 through himself or his agents whatsoever, subject to any other contrary order issued in an appropriate suit relating to LR No. 1317/195
- 3.The OCS Gilgil Police Station ordered to ensure compliance of the above orders
- 4.Both parties to bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over the plaint and counterclaim (no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Any definitive determination of the underlying property or succession dispute
The court declined to determine ownership/succession issues, holding that the restraining order relating to LR No. 1317/195 is subject to any contrary order in an appropriate forum and is not proof of ownership
Costs
Both parties to bear own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The parties herein have, in the course of the disputes, inappropriately communicated with each other and I thus see no need to deny them the restraining orders sought against each other herein.
A permanent restraining order is hereby issued restraining the defendant from threatening to harm, visiting and or contacting the plaintifi, his family members and employees, communicating with him, his family members and employees.
This order should not therefore be taken as full proof of the ownership of the property or a succession dispute over the property.
Any order issued in an appropriate forum in relation to the ownership of the property that is contrary to the above order, shall therefore be taken or interpreted to have set aside, vacated or varied the order in (b) above.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated '25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026', a date in the future, which appears to be a typographical error in the judgment
The judgment does not state the case number or citation of the suit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Githuka v Githinji (Civil Case E366 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 195 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/195/eng@2026-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.