Nyambura v Ngugi (Environment and Land Case 281 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1015 (KLR)

and the remaining balance of Kshs. 74,000/= will be paid in due course. Finally, the Defendant has established a prima facie case against the Plaintifi and the application is made in good faith. 6. The Defendant has filed yet another application dated 1-8-2025 in which he seeks an order similar to prayer 3 of the motion dated 24-7-2026. The only slight difierence is that the order is not sought pending the hearing and determination of this matter as it is in the application dated 24-7-2025. 7. The motion is opposed by the Plaintifi who has filed a replying afidavit dated 21-8-2025 in which he responds as follows. Firstly, the Plaintifi denies constructing buildings and cutting down trees on the suit land. The land on which the building stand is his own land. Secondly, nothing on the land belongs to the Defendant. Thirdly, the Plaintifi owns the land and the Defendant has no right to restrict his enjoyment of his land. Finally, the Plaintifi will sufier great prejudice if the application by the Defendant were allowed. 8. The only submissions that I see on the record are those by the Defendant’s counsel dated 18-11-2025. I see no submissions by the Plaintifis’ counsel. 9. I have carefully considered the two motions dated 24-7-2025 and 1-8-2025 respectively including the afidavits by both sides, the record and the written submissions by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the following issues arise. i. Who is the registered owner of the suit land. ii. Whether warrants of arrest against the Defendant can be lifted by this Court. iii. Whether the Defendant has proved that he is entitled to the orders of injunction. iv. Whether the firm of T.M. Njoroge Advocates should be allowed to come on record instead of Mbue Ndegwa and Co. Advocates. 10. On the first issue, I find that there is a Judgement on record dated 19-4-2018 which found that the Plaintifi was entitled to Kshs. 200,000/= plus costs. He was not awarded any land. He does not therefore own the suit land which is Loc.6/Muthithi/1920. 11. Regarding the second issue of the warrant of arrest, I find that this Court did not issue any warrants of arrest. If there is any warrant of arrest, it should be dealt with by the person who issued it. 12. I find that the Defendant is entitled to the orders of injunction because he is the owner of the suit land and the Plaintifi has no good reasons for invading the Defendant’s land. He has therefore established a prima facie case with a probability of success as against the Plaintifi. 13. Finally on the 4th issue, I find that the firm of T.M. Njoroge Advocate should be allowed to come on record in place of the firm of Mbue Ndegwa and Co. Advocates. The motion dated 24-7-2025 is served upon the firm of Mbue Ndegwa and Company Advocates and it is not opposed. 14. For the above stated reasons, the notice of motion dated 24-7-2025 is allowed in terms of prayer 2 only and the one dated 1-8-2025 is allowed in terms of prayer (b). Costs to the Defendant. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MURANG’A THIS 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026. M.N. GICHERU JUDGE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1015/eng@2026-02-24 2

page 2 of 3

Delivered online in the presence of; Court Assistant – Jackline Plaintifi’s Counsel – Mr Mbuthia Defendant’s Counsel – Mr T.M. Njoroge https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1015/eng@2026-02-24 3

page 3 of 3