Jethro & 7 others v Gichohi & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1662 (KLR) (18 March 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 1662 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NANYUKI ENVIROMENTAL AND LAND ORIGINATING SUMMONS E004 OF 2025 LN MBUGUA, J MARCH 18, 2026 BETWEEN MERCY WAIRIMU JETHRO & 7 OTHERS .......................................... PLAINTIFF AND JOSEPH GATHECA GICHOHI ...................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT JACINTA WAITHIRA .................................................................... 2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1. Before me is a notice of motion application dated 19.5.2025 filed contemporaneously with the suit. The plaintifi seeks orders of injunction restraining the 1st respondent from evicting them from parcel Laikipia/Daiga/Ethi Block 2/150. The applicants contend that they have lived on the suit land since 1988. 2. The 1st defendant has opposed the application vide his replying afidavit dated 23.9.2025. He contends that he is the registered owner of the suit property but denies that the plaintifis have been there since 1988, adding that the register of the suit land was opened on 10.6.1991. He contends that in year 2016, he instituted eviction proceedings against the 4th applicant of which he got the orders on 20.8.2019. The 4th plaintifi filed an appeal no.3 of 2023 which was dismissed. 3. I have considered the rival arguments. The principles underpinning the grant of temporary injunctions are well settled. The same are found in the celebrated case of Giella vs Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358 where it was stated thus: “ The conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction are now, I think, well settled in East Africa. 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 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1662/eng@2026-03-18 1
page 1 of 2
an award of damages. Thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience.” Also see; Nguruman Limited V Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR. 4. In their suit, the plaintifis are claiming the suit land via the doctrine of adverse possession averring that they have lived on the suit land for a period of over 30 years. The applicants admit that there was a suit filed before the Magistrate’s court but the 4th plaintifi was not aware of the same and that his appeal was dismissed. 5. A perusal of the judgment delivered in the Magistrates court at Nanyuki ELC 141 OF 2018 reveals that an order of permanent injunction was issued against Bernard Musembi Muli (the current 4th plaintifi) and anybody claiming interest under him from occupying the suit land. The appeal against that decree was dismissed. The current plaintifis are claiming their interest under the 4th plaintifi. In that regard, the issuance of the orders sought would be in confiict with orders lawfully given by a competent court. Thus the application dated 19.5.2025 is found to be unmerited, the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: Ms. Omwenga for holding brief for Wangechi Gathua for Applicant. Ms. Maina for 1st Respondent. G.M.N for 2nd Respondent. Nancy Mwangi – Court Assistant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1662/eng@2026-03-18 2
page 2 of 2