REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MURANG’A ELCLC E045 OF 2025 JUDDY NYAMBURA KARANJA………………..………………………………………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS JIMNA MAINA KURIA………………………………………………………………1ST DEFENDANT LYDIAH WANJIRU GICHOYA…………………………………………………….2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1) This ruling is on the notice of motion dated 9-4-2026. The motion which is brought under Articles 40, 48 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 13(7) (a) of the Environment and Land Court Act and Section 152 (E) of the Land Act seeks three(3) residual orders as follows. 3. That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, this Court be pleased to issue a temporary order of injunction restraining the Respondents whether by themselves, their agents, servants and/or any person claiming through them from trespassing into, entering, remaining upon, cutting, harvesting, carrying away napier grass or in any way interfering with the parcel of land known as L.R. No. T.325/FORT HALL LOC.1/GAKIRA and L.R. No. 162/FORT HALL LOC.12 SUB-LOC.1 MAP 14. 4. That the Officer Commanding Station OCS, Kangema Police Station be and is hereby directed to provide security and ensure compliance with the orders of this Court. 5. That costs be in the cause. 2) The motion is based on six(6) grounds and is supported by the affidavit of the Plaintiff dated 9-42026. The essence of the affidavit and the ground is as follows. One, the Plaintiff is the duly appointed administratix of the estate of the late Jefina Maina Karanja, the registered proprietor of the suit land. Two, the suit property forms the subject matter of the suit between MRG ELCLC E045 OF 2025 1Rof 2
page 1 of 2
the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Three, the Respondents have unlawfully trespassed into the suit parcels and commenced acts of interference including cutting down napier grass. Four, the acts of the Defendants are calculated to defeat the substratum of the suit and it is in the interests of justice that the status quo be maintained. 3) The motion though served is unopposed. On 18-5-2026 the first Defendant asked for time to file a replying affidavit. Even though he was given the time that he requested for, the 1 st Defendant did not file any replying affidavit. When the matter came up for hearing on 10-62026, he asked for time to settle the matter out of Court. The 2 nd Defendant is also duly served and has not filed any response to the motion. 4) Since the motion is unopposed and it is fair and just, I allow it in terms of prayers 3 and 4. Costs in the cause. Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Murang’a this 30th day of June, 2026. M.N. GICHERU JUDGE. Delivered online in the presence of; Court Assistants– Antony Plaintiff’s Counsel – Mr. Muli 1st Defendant - Absent 2nd Defendant - Absent MRG ELCLC E045 OF 2025 2Rof 2
page 2 of 2