Boro v Mboro & another (Environment and Land Case E031 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7408 (KLR)

the suit property or interfering in any way with the Plaintifi’s interest pending hearing and determination of this application and the suit or as the court deems fit. iv. This Honourable court be pleased to compel the Land Registry, Kajiado to immediately issue certified copies of the land records in regards to Kajiado/Kisaju/2055 & Kajiado/Kisaju/2056 to the Applicant pending hearing and determination of this application and the suit or as the court deems fit. v. In the alternative this Honourable court be pleased issue an order of status quo to be maintained to prevent any further dealings on the suit properties known as Kajiado/ Kisaju/2055 & Kajiado/Kisaju/2056 pending hearing and determination of this application and the suit or as the court deems fit. vi. The costs of this application be borne by the 1st Respondent. 3. The grounds are on the face of the application as set out in paragraphs A to K. It is supported by the sworn Afidavit of Virginia Gakuhi Boro, the Plaintifi/Applicant herein. 4. She claims that the 1st Defendant/Respondent identified the suit properties and requested her to undertake the purchase and registration of the same. She claims that there was a deficit of Kshs. 500,000 which she ofiset with the understanding that the 1st Defendant/Respondent would refund. In 2014 she discovered fraudulent activities on the suit properties and upon informing the 1st Defendant/ Respondent, she was requested to secure her interests. This resulted to the dispute in ELC No. 944 of 217 formerly ELC 1281 of 2015. The 1st Defendant/Respondent granted her an irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 27th April 2018 which she used in testifying in that suit. She claims that she used her personal finances to settle legal fees and the matter was concluded in favour of the 1st Respondent on the 12th October 2022. She then presented the decree of the judgement in ELC 944 of 2017 (formerly ELC 1281 of 2015) to Kajiado Land Registry where the decree was verified on 7th September 2023 and upon presentation of requisite document the suit properties were transferred to her and Titles issued on the 28th December 2023. 5. It is her case that on 16th April 2024 she was charged in Kajiado Law Courts vide MCCR/E392/2024 R vs Virginia Gachuki Boro for transferring the property under false pretence but the charge was withdrawn on the 3rd November 2011. On 11th November 2024, she lodged a complaint at the Kajiado Lands Registry after learning of fraudulent dealings in respect of the suit properties. It is then that the title issued to her was illegally cancelled and re-issued to the 1st Defendant /Respondent on 4th October 2024 in contravention of the irrevocable Power of Attorney and without reimbursing her the money spent. She claims that these actions are illegal as the Power of Attorney was still valid. 6. The 1st Defendant /Respondent in her Replying Afidavit contested the application pointing out that the Plaintifi/Applicant was not entitled to the orders sought on grounds that she was the registered owner of the suit properties having purchased them in 2002 and 2004 from one Meneto Simingorr Olongurro. She averred that in 2015 she discovered fraudulent activities against the suit property and filed ELC Milimani 1281 of 2015 which was later transferred to Kajiado as ELC No. 944 of 2017. It is her case that due to the geographical distance and the requirement for her to testify in Court, she donated a Special Power of Attorney to her sister, the Plaintifi to testify on her behalf. This was done and a judgement entered in her favour on 12th October 2022 and the suit properties were reverted back to her by the 2nd Defendant. It is her case that, the Plaintifi fraudulently and by misrepresentation caused the suit properties to be transferred to her. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7408/eng@2025-10-30 2

page 2 of 4

7. She then lodged a criminal case, MCCR/E392/2024 in Kajiado Law Courts, which was withdrawn under Section 87A of the Civil Procedure Code without her knowledge. She denied that she owed the Plaintifi any money and stated that she had begun the process of revoking the Power of Attorney donated to the Plaintifi. She further stated that the Plaintifi’s application was an abuse of the court process and ought to be dismissed because the plaintifi can be adequately compensated by way of damages. She stated that the Plaintifi had placed a restriction placed on the suit property on 11th November 2024. 8. The Plaintifi/Applicant in her supplementary afidavit contested the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s claim arguing that even though there was a restriction on the suit property, the 1st defendant was still interfering with them. Though she had contributed to their purchase. She also averred that the 1st Defendant/Respondent had contradicted herself because she first stated that the Power of Attorney was to institute the suit but in the same breath states that she was the one who instituted the suit. It is her case that the costs incurred in prosecuting the suit was to be ofiset by the 1st Defendant / Respondent by apportioning a part of the suit property to her. She prays that the Application be allowed. 9. This application was canvassed by way of written submissions. 10. I have considered the Notice of Motion, the Afidavit in support, the response thereto, the rival submissions and the authorities cited. The issues for determination are; i. Whether the Plaintifi/Applicant’s application meets the threshold for grant of temporary injunction. ii. Who should bear costs of this Application? 11. The principles governing the grant of temporary injunction were set out in the precedent setting case of Giella vs. Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358. These principles were reafirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Nguruman Limited vs. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others (2014) KECA (60) KLR. 12. The Plaintifi/Applicant states in her afidavit in support that she was charged with the criminal ofience of Obtaining Registration by false pretences Contrary to Section 320 of the Penal Code. It is her case that the charges have since been withdrawn. It is clear from the letter of the Ofice of the Director of Public Prosecution that the Plaintifi/Applicant herein admitted that she held the two titles on behalf of her sister, the 1st Defendant/Respondent herein. There is also a special Power of Attorney dated 27th April 2018 which had been donated by the 1st Defendant/Respondent to the Plaintifi/Applicant herein. 13. I have considered the above facts and find that the Plaintifi/Applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success at the trial. 14. It is the 1st Defendant/Respondents contention that the Plaintifi/Applicant herein fraudulently caused the suit properties to be transferred to her. 15. I also find that the Plaintifi/Applicant has failed to demonstrate that will sufier irreparable harm if these orders are not granted. 16. The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the 1st Defendant/Respondent who is the registered owner of the suit properties. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7408/eng@2025-10-30 3

page 3 of 4

17. In conclusion I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant/Respondent. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025. .............................................................. L. KOMINGOI JUDGE In the presence of: Ms. Kemunto for Ms. Miima for Plaintifi. Mr. Nairi for the 1st Defendant. N/A for the 2nd Defenant. Court Assistant – Peter. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7408/eng@2025-10-30 4

page 4 of 4