keelc-2026-00591

3. The application was opposed by the Respondents who insist that the Applicants have no legal, equitable or registrable interest over the suit property. The 2nd Defendant avers that he is the lawful owner of the suit property having been duly located the same by the Department of Housing and Urban Renewal. He states that the Applicants are trespassers and interlopers who have no right over the suit property. Any action that was taken was pursuant to a lawful entitlement to the suit property. 4. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a Preliminary Objection in which they assert that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter as it is a tenancy dispute. Counsel submits that the issues in contention do not implicate issues of land use, ownership or proprietary interest. This issue was determined by the court in its Ruling dated 29th April 2025. 5. The court has considered the submissions filed by both counsel. The sole issue for determination is whether the application dated 13th March 2025 is merited. 6. The question for grant of the principles are fairly well settled by the locus classicus of Giella Vs Cassman Brown & Company Limited [1973] E.A. 358., where the court stated thus: “ First, an applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success. Secondly, an interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise sufier irreparable injury, which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages. Thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience.” 7. The Plaintifis aver that they have been tenants since 1999 when they obtained a Housing Estates Rent Card from the 1st Interested Party. They insist that they have since then paid rent faithfully until they were unlawfully displaced by the Defendants. They were not given any notice. 8. The Respondents do not deny that they are in possession having used what they describe as lawful means to take possession of a property they lawfully owned. They also dispute that the Plaintifis are tenants which is surprising considering that they had first sought to have the matter struck out on the basis that this court has no jurisdiction over a tenancy dispute. 9. It is not seriously contested that the Plaintifis were in longstanding occupation. The Defendants object to the legality of their occupation but do not give any evidence to controvert the longstanding occupation by the Plaintifis. Their afidavit is conveniently vague on any dates that could guide the court on this aspect. I am therefore guided by the dates by the Plaintifis. 10. It is not denied that the Defendants evicted the Plaintifis without a court order. Self -help eviction is unlawful regardless of whether the party undertaking it claims ownership of the property. At this stage the court is not called upon to determine ownership. The issue before court is possession which was unlawfully disturbed. 11. The Plaintifis sought an injunction and eviction order against the Defendants. Although the Plaintifis used the term eviction it is clear from the afidavit evidence and submissions that what the Plaintifi is seeking is restoration into possession after an unlawful eviction. 12. A prayer seeking removal of a party who unlawfully took possession is in substance a request for a mandatory injunction restoring status quo ante. The court has inherent power to issue appropriate orders necessary to ensure justice is done. A party should not benefit from an illegal act. 13. The court now considers whether the facts in this justify grant of a mandatory injunction. A mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage issues only in the clearest of cases. In this case the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/591/eng@2026-01-29 2

page 2 of 3

Plaintifis were in long peaceful occupation; the eviction was carried out without notice and without court sanction; the claim of ownership does not justify forceful eviction. 14. In these circumstances, the court is satisfied that this is a clear case where restoration is necessary to preserve the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial process. The application is thus allowed in the following terms ; a. A mandatory injunction is hereby issued compelling the Defendants to restore the Plaintifi into vacant possession of the suit premises forthwith pending the hearing and determination of the suit. b. A prohibitory injunction is hereby issued restraining the Defendant, his agents or servants from interfering with the Plaintifis quiet possession and occupation of the suit premises pending the hearing and determination of the suit. c. The Defendants shall comply with the order within 30 days from the date hereof. d. Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026. JUDY OMANGE JUDGE In The Presence Of: N/A For the Plaintifi. N/A For the Defendant. Peter – Court Assistant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/591/eng@2026-01-29 3

page 3 of 3