Waithaka v Nanjero & another

d) A mandatory injunction do issue compelling the Respondents within two days from the date of the orders of this court to furnish the Applicant with their Ardhi Sasa number for purposes of initiating the process of conversion of the title land reference No 1870/VIII/204 through the Ardhi Sasa portal. e) In the event of non-compliance with order 4 within the stipulated timelines, this honourable court do issue an order compelling the chief lands registrar to effect the transfer of property land reference no 1870/VIII/204 to the Applicant manually, outside the Ardhi Sasa platform and without the requirement of conversion of title. f) Costs of the application. 2. The application was premised on grounds inter alia that pursuant to the judgement delivered on the 26 th April 2026, the Applicant performed her part as ordered in the judgement which was to pay interest which in this case accumulated to Ksh.600,000/= to the Respondents, and the Respondent was to release completion documents. 3. That despite performance of the Applicant, the Respondents gave outdated documents of a title that had not been converted making registration impossible and that despite follow up with the Respondents, they have neglected to provide valid documents which actions have instructed execution of the decree hence this application. ELCLMISC E366 OF 2025 J 2

page 2 of 7

4. That the first Defendant is the registered owner of the suit property but has never laid claim to it since the plaintiff took possession up until the year 2023 when the Defendant sought to have them evicted and has since then been making efforts to evict them. 5. The Respondents in response filed a replying affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent. He deponed indeed the Applicant had remitted interest as in the judgement and they in turn surrendered completion documents. That the delay in registration has been occasioned by the fact that the title needs to be converted on the Ardhi Sasa platform before transfer can be effected and that they have not refused to effect transfer. 6. He further deponed the process of conversion will require payment of certain fees and they had written to the Applicant to facilitate the conversion and were willing and ready to do the conversion on receipt of facilitation fees. 7. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions with the Applicant filing submissions dated 30 th June 2026 whereas the Respondent filed submissions dated 2nd July 2026. Applicant’s submissions 8. The Applicant submitted reiterating the contents of her supporting affidavit. She indicated that this case called for the grant of mandatory injunctive orders on an interlocutory application, judgement having been already entered and the rights and obligations of both parties determined. ELCLMISC E366 OF 2025 J 3

page 3 of 7

The Applicant submitted that this was a straightforward case of a successful litigant who has complied as per the judgement and a judgment-debtor who is using non-cooperation to render the decree nugatory. She relied on the case of Titus Sinkeen Terta Vs Susan Kaluki Nzioki & 4 others [2019] KEELC 1555 (KLR) 9. Counsel submitted that the court was being called upon to give effect to a final judgment of the High Court by compelling the Respondents to perform acts that are purely administrative and consequential to that judgment hence the prayer for mandatory injunctions. Respondents ‘submissions 10. The Respondents reiterated the contents in their supporting affidavit indicating that there was no unwillingness on their part to effect transfer. They submitted that this is not a case where they have refused to convert the title for registration but are awaiting for facilitation from the Applicant to carry out the process of conversion hence they see no need for the orders being sought after as they are ready to comply Analysis and determination 11. Having considered the pleadings, the replying Affidavit, and the submissions of both parties, the Court finds that the only substantive issue for determination is whether the Applicant is entitled to the mandatory injunctive orders ELCLMISC E366 OF 2025 J 4

page 4 of 7

12. It is trite that a mandatory injunction may be granted on an interlocutory (temporary) application in given circumstances, as was established in case of Kenya Breweries Ltd. & Ano. Vs. Washington O. Okeyo: where the court set out the conditions as; i. When the case is clear and the court believes it should be decided immediately. ii. When the act to be remedied is a simple and summary one that can be easily fixed. iii. If the Defendant has attempted to "steal a march" on the plaintiff. 13. Having looked at the case herein and the contested issues, this court finds and holds that it is a clear case which should be determined immediately being that there are no rights to be determined for either party. The act sought to be remedied is a simple one, which can be determined in a summary manner in this case the Respondents are to effect transfer to fully comply with the judgement delivered on the 26th April 2026. 14. The said judgement indicated the Applicant is to pay interest to the Respondents and the Respondents are to facilitate the process of transfer. The Applicant has paid interest a fact admitted by the Respondents who indicate they did send over the completion documents and the only hindrance to effecting the transfer is that the title need conversion and which will require facilitation by the Applicant. ELCLMISC E366 OF 2025 J 5

page 5 of 7

15. On record I have seen the letter dated 6th August 2024 requesting for the said facilitation from the Respondent and a further correspondence from the Applicant dated 21 st August 2024 requesting for the quotation on how much fees is required. The Applicant’s letter of 21st August 2024 has not responded to up until the filing of this application which is a period of over one year. The Respondent has indicated willingness to complete the conversion process on the payment of the requisite fees which fees he is required to itemize and forward to the Applicant, hence the delay has been and still being occasioned by the Respondents. 16. I find no reason in denying the orders being that the Respondents are not opposing the application and are much ready to carry out the process of conversion to effect the transfer of the suit property to the Applicant. An order of the court will allow for timely execution of the obligations by the Respondents. The Respondents will not be prejudiced in any way. Final Disposition For the reasons as above, I make the following orders; i. A mandatory injunction is hereby issued, compelling the Respondents within thirty (30) days of this order to execute registrable transfer forms in the prescribed format (form LRA 33) in favour of the Applicant over LR No 1870/VIII/204. ii. In the event of non-compliance with order (i) above, the deputy registrar of this court is to execute the requisite transfer forms (form LRA 33) on behalf of the Respondent. ELCLMISC E366 OF 2025 J 6

page 6 of 7

iii. Costs to be awarded to the Plaintiff/Applicant. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED virtually at NAIROBI on this 6th day of August, 2026. MOHAMMED N. KULLOW JUDGE Judgement delivered in the presence of: Ms. Buluma Ms. Talu Ms. Mwangi ELCLMISC E366 OF 2025 for the Applicant for the Respondent Court Assistant J 7

page 7 of 7