George Otieno Apiyo v County Government of Nairobi City & 2 Others

else acting through them from selling, disposing of or doing anything with the Applicant’s Kariokor House No. 176 and Kariokor Market Shop No. 168 pending hearing and determination of this application inter partes. d) That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of inhibition against Kariokor House No. 176 and Kariokor Market Shop No. 168 pending hearing and determination of this application inter partes and thereafter until the further orders of this Honourable Court. e) That costs be provided for. 2. The reasons are contained on the face of the application and in a supporting affidavit of George Otieno Apiyo, sworn on 9.7.2026. 3. The Applicant deposes that Hannah N.G. Apiyo is the registered proprietor of a market stall known as Kariokor Market/168, while Gilbert Opiyo Orengo is the registered proprietor of the parcel known as Kariokor/176, both now deceased and who were allocated the suit plots by the former City Council of Nairobi and are situated at Page 2 of 15

page 2 of 15

Kariokor, Nairobi. The Applicant has annexed copies of the Housing Estates rent cards marked “GOA-01a” and “GOA01b”. 4. The Applicant deposes that the 1st Respondent is the lawful grantee of leases issued by the Government of the Republic of Kenya in respect of the said properties. 5. The Applicant deposes that he is the administrator of the Estates of both deceased persons and is therefore best placed to manage and address matters relating to the said properties. 6. The Applicant deposes that his parents were lawfully leased the suit properties and duly made all requisite payments pursuant to the respective lease agreements issued by the County Government, which subsequently issued them with lease certificates. 7. The Applicant deposes that his parents assigned their interests in the suit properties to him after he undertook the necessary due diligence and established that the properties lawfully belonged to them. Page 3 of 15

page 3 of 15

8. The Applicant deposes that, prior to their demise, he was appointed as the sole manager and administrator of the Estates of Gilbert Opiyo Orengo (deceased) and Hannah N.G. Apiyo. He further deposes that he has been handling matters relating to the deceased Estates in Kisumu Succession Cause No. E093 of 2025, In the Matter of the Estate of Gilbert Apiyo Orengo, Succession Miscellaneous Cause No. E27 of 2023, and Succession Miscellaneous Cause No. E114 of 2025, all filed at the Kisumu Law Courts. The Applicant has annexed copies of the respective death certificates marked “GOA-03a” and “GOA-03b”. 9. The Applicant deposes that he has single-handedly managed the deceased's estate despite the challenges posed by alleged intermeddling by some family members. He states that, on one occasion, he received threats from the 2nd Respondent, who is currently abroad and who, together with the 3rd Respondent, has allegedly sought to frustrate the family members residing in Kenya. 10. The Applicant deposes that his parents were registered proprietors as lessees of the suit properties on 1.10.1969 Page 4 of 15

page 4 of 15

and 11.8.2010, respectively, and that they continuously paid the requisite rent and rates in respect of the two properties up to the time of their demise. 11. The Applicant deposes that he has managed and maintained the suit properties for the benefit of the other family members and has consistently paid the requisite rent and rates. He states that, sometime in May 2025, he discovered that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents had allegedly accessed and interfered with the relevant payment system and proceeded to make rent payments for the months of May, June and July without the consent of the administrator or the other beneficiaries. The Applicant has annexed copies of the relevant County Government invoices marked “GOA-04”. 12. The Applicant deposes that he has, over time, received demand notices from the 1st Respondent requiring payment of rent and has consistently complied with such demands by making the requisite payments within the prescribed timelines. He states that this changed after his accounts were allegedly accessed and interfered with Page 5 of 15

page 5 of 15

by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The Applicant has annexed a copy of the demand notice marked “GOA-05”. 13. The Applicant deposes that the 1st Respondent published a Gazette Notice dated 6.3.2020 appointing the Kenya Revenue Authority to register tenants of Nairobi City County Government rental houses on the Nairobi Revenue System, which registration was required to be completed by 13.9.2021. The applicant says that he duly complied with the said requirement. A copy of the Gazette Notice is annexed and marked “GOA-06”. 14. The Applicant deposes that he was the one responsible for payment of the rent and rates in respect of House No. 176 and Stall No. 168 up to and including April 2026, as per the annexed copies of the relevant M-PESA transaction records marked “GOA-07”. 15. The Applicant deposes that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have fraudulently caused the 3rd Respondent to be registered as the person entitled to make payments in respect of the land rates and further proceeded to pay rent for the months of May, June and July 2026. Page 6 of 15

page 6 of 15

16. The Applicant states that, as a result, he had been denied access to the relevant accounts and was thereby prevented from making the requisite rent payments. He has annexed an invoice issued by the 1st Respondent reflecting the rent payment made by the 3rd Respondent, marked “GOA-08”. 17. The Applicant deposes that he has written several letters to the 1st Respondent requesting that the erroneous registration and payment details be rectified. However, despite his correspondence, he has, to date, received no substantive response. 18. The Applicant states that the failure to address the matter has necessitated the filing of the present application. Copies of the said correspondence are annexed and marked “GOA-09”. 19. Despite service, the Application remains unopposed. 20. The court's authority to issue a temporary injunction is primarily based on Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Section 63E of the Civil Procedure Act. Page 7 of 15

page 7 of 15

21. The section and the rule allow the court to grant protective orders to safeguard disputed property if it is at risk of being damaged, wasted, or transferred before the lawsuit is fully resolved. See Mohamed Maye Omar vs Ali Mohamed Abushir & 4 Others (2023) KEELC 16640 (KLR) and Rhoda Mibey vs Lomson Enterprise & 6 Others (2024) KEELC 3653 (KLR) (30th April 2024) Ruling. 22. An applicant must establish a prima facie case, prove irreparable loss or damage and show that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting such orders. In Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of (K) Ltd (2003) KLR 125, a prima facie case was said to go beyond a simple, arguable claim. An applicant must actively demonstrate that the opposing party infringed upon a specific right, which then obligates them to offer a rebuttal. 23. For an applicant to establish irreparable loss or damage, the alleged harm must be real, evident, imminent, and substantial. Mere apprehension, fear, or speculative Page 8 of 15

page 8 of 15

assertions of possible loss or damage do not meet this threshold, as was held in Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR. 24. In Pius Kipchirchir Kogo -vs- Frank Kimeli Tenai [2018] KEELC 2424 (KLR), the court said that the balance of convenience means determining if the plaintiff stands to lose more from the denial of an injunction (if their case ultimately fails) than the defendant stands to lose from its approval. 25. In arriving at whether the Giella -vs- Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd(1973) EA 358 principles have been met, the court is not expected to hold a mini trial or make a definitive finding on fact and the law. All it has to consider based on the rival affidavit evidence is whether, on a balance of probabilities, a case is made to preserve the substratum of the suit in favour of protectable rights or interests of an applicant. See RWK vs SKM & 2 Others (2022) KEHC 1418 (KLR) 26. On the first limb, the Applicant has presented evidence establishing a historical connection between his deceased parents with the suit properties. The Housing Page 9 of 15

page 9 of 15

Estates rent cards, proof of rent payments, County Government invoices, and correspondence with the 1st Respondent demonstrate, prima facie, that the Applicant and the Estates have had a longstanding relationship with the suit properties and have duly met the obligations associated with them, to which he has been appointed as a legal representative. 27. The Court takes judicial notice that whereas the 1 st Respondent holds the property leases, the Applicant's claims of ownership through a parental assignment must be fully evaluated at trial. At this interlocutory stage, the Court cannot and is not called upon to make a final determination on property ownership or inheritance rights. Establishing a prima facie case does not require the Applicant to conclusively prove the claim at the interlocutory stage. 28. At this stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable right that is threatened with infringement and whether the evidence presented justifies the grant of interim measures to preserve the subject matter, pending the Page 10 of 15

page 10 of 15

final determination of the dispute. The applicant has successfully established a prima facie case for interlocutory relief. The evidence presents a triable issue regarding the management of the subject properties, rental collection, alterations to payment records, and the parties' respective proprietary interests. 29. The second issue for determination is whether the Applicant has established a likelihood of suffering irreparable harm. The suit properties are specific immovable properties whose ownership, legal status, and control are directly in dispute. Any dealings or transactions affecting the suit properties, including alterations to the register, before the determination of the suit could complicate the dispute and potentially prejudice the nature and effectiveness of the relief that may ultimately be granted to the successful party. 30. The applicant has also demonstrated that there has been a dispute concerning the person recognised for purposes of rent and rates payments. Even though messing up with the payment system doesn't directly prove the Page 11 of 15

page 11 of 15

properties are about to be sold, it does demonstrate that both sides are still actively fighting over ownership. 31. The court must therefore consider the need to preserve the subject matter of the suit, since an interlocutory injunction is only intended to preserve the existing position so that the court's eventual determination is not rendered nugatory. 32. The third consideration is the balance of convenience. In determining this question, the court considers the comparative inconvenience likely to be occasioned by either granting or withholding the order. The court must be satisfied that the order granted is proportionate to the dispute before it. 33. The balance of convenience principle is essentially concerned with preserving the subject matter where the court is unable to conclusively determine the competing rights at the interlocutory stage. 34. The applicant has also sought an order of inhibition. Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act empowers the court to make an order inhibiting, for a particular period, Page 12 of 15

page 12 of 15

until the occurrence of a particular event, or generally until further orders, the registration of any dealing with land, a lease or a charge, as was held in Patrick Mwongera( Suing in a personal capacity and as an administrator of the estate of the late Julius Murungi Mugambi (deceased) & 3 Others vs Jennifer Kairiari & 2 Others, ELC NO. E003 of 2020 (OS). 35. An inhibition is a preservatory order intended to prevent dealings with the property pending determination of the dispute. It is therefore particularly appropriate where the court considers it necessary to maintain the status quo concerning the registration of the property, while the parties' competing rights are being determined. 36. In the present case, the applicant has raised substantive issues concerning the interests of the deceased parents, the administration assignment of of their their Estates, the interests and subsequent the alleged dealings with the rent and payment records. The court is satisfied that preservation Page 13 of 15 of the properties from

page 13 of 15

registration of further dealings is warranted pending determination of the suit. 37. I therefore find that the applicant has established sufficient grounds for the grant of an inhibition. The order shall operate only to preserve the registration status of Kariokor House No. 176 and Kariokor Market Shop No. 168 and shall not prevent the parties from complying with lawful obligations relating to payment of rent, rates or other statutory charges. 38. Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 9.7.2026 is hereby allowed in the following terms: a. An order of temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the Respondents, their servants, agents, assignees or any persons acting through them from selling, transferring, disposing of, charging or otherwise alienating or dealing with Kariokor House No. 176 and Kariokor Market Shop No. 168 pending the hearing and determination of the suit. b. An inhibition is hereby issued pursuant to Section 68 of the Land Registration Act inhibiting the registration of any Page 14 of 15

page 14 of 15

transfer, charge, lease, assignment or other disposition affecting Kariokor House No. 176 and Kariokor Market Shop No. 168 pending the hearing and determination of the suit or further orders of the court. c. That status quo be maintained. 35. Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 7 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026. …………………………. HON. JUSTICE C.K. NZILI JUDGE Delivered In the Presence of : Mr. George Otieno for Applicant Court Assistant ; Julius Legal Researcher ; Bevalyn Nyakwana Page 15 of 15

page 15 of 15