https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3871

Bati v Maunga & another (Land Case E138 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3871 (KLR) (15 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3871 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kwale Land Case E138 of 2025 LL Naikuni, J June 15, 2026 Between Nguttah Nyamawi Bati Plaintiff and Chizi Mwanzamba Maunga 1st Defendant National Land Commission 2nd Defendant Ruling I. Introduction 1.The Ruling before this Honourable Court is onto the Notice of Motion application dated 17th December, 2025 by Nguttah Nyamawi Bati, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, It was brought pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3, 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Laws of Kenya; Order 40 Rules 1; and Order 51 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; and any other enabling provisions. 2.Upon service, the application was opposed through a Replying Affidavit dated 25th February 2026 and sworn by Chizi Mwanzamba Maunga, the 1st Respondent and the Replying Affidavit sworn by Mariko Kalimoi, the Principal Valuation Officer, valuation and taxation department at NLC, of the 2nd Respondents. II. The Plaintiff/Applicant’s Case 3.The Plaintiff/Applicant sought for the following orders:-a.Spent.b.That pending the hearing and determination of this application, the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an injunction against the Respondents and/ or their agents from actualizing compensation regarding parcel Kwale/ Chigato/ 699, or any actions on selling, leasing or constructing under the suit property, pending the hearing and determination of the suit case.c.That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an injunction against the Respondents and/ or their agents from actualizing compensation regarding parcel Kwale/ Chigato/ 699, or any actions on selling, leasing or constructing under the suit property, pending the hearing and determination of the suit case.d.That in the alternative to prayers numbers 2 and 3 above, the Honourable Court issues orders compelling the 2nd Respondent to deposit the awards/ compensations regarding parcel Kwale/ Chigato/ 699 in court.e.That costs of this application be provided for. 4.The application was based on the grounds, testimonial facts and the averments made out under the 13 paragraphed supporting affidavit sworn by Nguttah Nyamawi Bati. The deponent averred as follows that:-a.He was the beneficial and/or registered owner of all that parcel of land known as parcel Kwale/ Chigato/ 699 [Hereinafter referred to as “The Suit Property”].b.The suit property had been earmarked for compulsory acquisition for public use under the Mwache Dam Project.c.The 2nd Respondent had commenced and/or initiated the compensation process in respect of the said compulsory acquisition.d.Despite of his ownership and/or beneficial interest in the suit properties, the 2nd Respondent had indicated its intention to compensate the 1st Respondent as the owner of the said parcel of land.e.The intended compensation of the 1st Respondent was erroneous, unlawful, and is being undertaken without regard to his proprietary interest in the suit properties.f.Unless this Honourable Court urgently intervenes and issues injunctive orders stopping the compensation, the 2nd Respondent shall proceed to release compensation monies to the 1st Respondent, thereby extinguishing the Applicants interest in the suit properties without due process.g.The Applicant stood to suffer irreparable loss and damage if the compensation was paid out to the wrong parties, as he shall be rendered homeless and landless, a loss which could not be adequately compensated by an award of damages.h.The 2nd Respondent had already issued award letters, and there existed a real and imminent risk that compensation monies shall be released without further notice unless this application was certified as urgent and heard immediately.i.Once compensation was paid to the 1st Respondent, the substratum of the suit would be destroyed and this suit rendered nugatory.j.It was in the interest of justice, equity, and fairness that the orders sought in the Notice of Motion be granted to preserve the suit properties and/or compensation pending the hearing and determination of this suit.k.The application had been brought in good faith, timeously and without undue delay. III. The responses by the 1st Respondent 5.The 1st Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit dated 25th February, 2026 and sworn by the Deponent. He averred as follows that:-a.He was in possession of the suit property title whose registered owner was Guni Bati. The deponent confirmed that indeed the property had been earmarked for compulsory acquisition by the 2nd Respondent.b.The registered owner was his deceased father who had passed on 18th March, 2018 and had left the suit property behind for the deponent to succeed him.c.For the orders sought to be granted, the Plaintiff/Applicant must establish a prima facie case with a high probability of success.d.The applicant bore the burden of proof as he who alleged must provide evidence to prove their assertions beyond reasonable doubt. The applicants claim for land has thus not been corroborated by any evidence.e.The claims of ownership had only emerged after the national land commission began its process of compensation of the land owners for acquisition of land for the Mwache Dam Project.f.The suit property had been listed for acquisition with an award of a sum of Kenya Shillings Nine Million One Ninety Thousand and Seventy (Kshs 9,190,070/-). The process could not be stopped and the Applicants assertion that they would suffer irreparable loss could not be adequately compensated by an award of damages were false.g.In the unlikely event that the court found that the Plaintiff/Applicant was the owner of the property, they would only be entitled to the award issued to be and not the suit property, which was now property of the state.h.The Plaintiff/Applicant was seeking the award and not the suit property. Consequently, any harm suffered by the award could be atoned by an award of damages. That the balance of convenience tilted in favour of the Respondents. The Application delayed the process of compensation and subsequent compulsory acquisition by the 1st Respondent, being the National Land Commission. This, in turn, affected the construction timeline for the Mwache Dam Project.i.Furthermore, the 2nd Respondent stood to suffer huge inconvenience as they were the registered owner of the suit property and are entitled to the award of a sum of Kenya Shillings Nine Million One Ninety Thousand and Seventy (Kshs. 9,190,070/=).j.Delay in issuing the award would leave the 1st Respondent homeless as they would have no means of relocation.k.It would be in the interest of justice that the application was denied. IV. The responses by the 2nd Respondents 6.Likewise, the National Land Commission, the 2nd Respondent opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit dated 23rd February, 2026 sworn by Mariko Kaliamoi, the Principal Valuation Officer in the Valuation and Taxation Department at the National Land Commission. The deponent stated that:-a.the suit property, Land Reference Number Kwale/Chigato/699, had been identified for compulsory acquisition for the Mwache Multi Purposes Dam project. The Commission had indeed commenced the process of compulsory acquisition as mandated by the Constitution and the Land Act, No. 6 of 2012.b.The commission's process involved the identification of rightful owners and interested parties for the purposes of assessment and payment of just compensation.c.Contrary to the Applicant's apprehensions, the Commission had not made any payment of compensation to the 1st Defendant/Respondent or any other party in relation to the suit property.d.The reason the compensation had not been paid was precisely due to the issue of ownership raised in this suit. The Commission's records indicated that the party claiming ownership and whose name appeared in the Gazette Notice being one Nguni Bati had not presented a valid title document or sufficient proprietary documentation to the Commission to facilitate the issuance of a formal award and subsequent payment.e.The Commission was a public body bound by the law and the principles of fair administrative action. It was their duty to ensure that compensation was paid only to the lawfully recognized owner or proprietor of a property. They could not and would not issue an award or pay compensation to any party without clear proof of title.f.The Commission had no intention of causing irreparable loss or damage to any person as their process was designed to protect the proprietary interests of all persons with a legitimate claim to land subject to compulsory acquisition.g.In light of the above, the apprehension by the Applicant that compensation would be paid to the wrong party was unfounded.h.The process by the Commission was ongoing, and the payment had been held in abeyance pending the resolution of the ownership dispute.i.The Commission was a neutral arbiter in disputes of this nature.j.The 2nd Respondent was ready and willing to abide by any orders and the final determination of this Honourable Court regarding the rightful owner of the suit property. It was stated that the Commission would not be prejudiced by the maintenance of the status quo as ordered by the court on 22nd December, 2025. In fact, the status quo order supported the Commission’s lawful process of verifying ownership before payment.k.Lastly, the orders sought by the Applicant were largely directed at the 1st Defendant/Respondent. That the Applicant’s grievance was primarily with the 1st Defendant/Respondent's claim to ownership.l.The Commission was a necessary party only to give effect to the court's final orders on compensation. Thus, the court was invited to take notice of the 2nd Respondent’s position that no compensation had been paid. V. The Further Affidavit by the Plaintiff/Applicant 7.The Applicant filed a further affidavit dated 5th March 2026 in response to the averments raised in the affidavits in response to the application. It was sworn by Nguttah Nyamawi Bati and who stated as follows that:-a.the land was the 1st Respondent’s father alone, the title was indeed registered in the name of Guni Bati to hold in trust for the family of Bati Mbui (their grandfather) which included Nyamawi Bati (his father) Guni Bati (the Respondent’s father) and Nadzua Bati, (their sister) and others.b.Guni Bati was the only surviving son and so the property was registered in his name in the year 2016 to hold in trust of all the beneficiaries/ family.c.Upon the death of the said Guni Bati in the year 2018, the deponent took it upon himself to take out the Certificate of Death and burial Permit he procured.d.In response to the claim that the deponent had no evidence of any interest over the land he stated that after the announcement of the Mwache Dam project, as a family, they had the land assessed as a family together and it was agreed that the proceeds of the compensation be shared among the family.e.Without the participation of the other members, the 1st Respondent proceeded to take out (limited) Letters of Administration Ad - litem for the estate of Guni Bati as confessed in his Replying Affidavit in an effort to misrepresent an ancestral family land as his own.f.The 1st Respondent deceived the deponent in releasing the Certificate of Death issued in the year 2018.g.The deponent averred that he proceeded to file a complaint with the Frontman Consultants firm in charge of grievances and in the year 2025, he later received a message from the same firm confirming receipt of the dispute but no action was taken since.h.The deponent also approached the area chief, and the 1st Respondent was summoned twice on 5th and 28th November, 2025 over the same dispute which summons were never honoured.i.The deponent prayed that the application herein should be allowed to safeguard the compensation/ award from being released to the 1st Respondent who was misrepresenting the suit property as their personal land instead of it being family owned.j.The 2nd Respondent, NLC had already issued the family with an award for the graves (11 in number) of their deceased family members, the said award dated 13th November, 2025.k.The deponent stated that from the evidence adduced, the Applicant had a prima facie case that would be rendered nugatory if the application was not allowed.l.If this court failed to grant the injunction sought and the compensation held in abeyance pending the resolution of the issue of ownership, the Applicant and other members of the family would suffer irreparable harm and injustice. VI. Submissions 8.On 26th February 2026, while all the parties were present in Court, they were given directions to have the application dated 17th December, 2025 be canvased with by way of written submissions. Pursuant to that, at the time of penning down this ruling, only the applicant had complied. Subsequently, a ruling date was reserved for 15th June 2026 on its own merit. A. The Written Submissions by the Plaintiff/Applicants 9.The Law firm of Messrs. Barayan & Associates Advocates filed written submissions on behalf of the Applicant herein. It was dated 1st May, 2026. The Counsel informed the Court that there were two ( 2 ) main issues for determination were identified as:a.Whether this court should grant the interlocutory injunction orders pending the hearing and determination of the matter.b.Who should bear the costs of the application. 10.On the first issue for determination, reference was made to the principles set down in the celebrated case of “Giella – Versus - Cassman Brown & Co Limited (1973) EA 358”, which are: a) The existence of a prima facie case b) That the Applicant will suffer irreparable loss, which loss could not be compensated by damages c) That the balance of convenience was in the Applicant’s favour. 11.The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant had a prima facie case. The suit property was in contention because the Applicant, being a grandson of the late Bati Mbui, had a claim over it as although it was registered under the name Guni Bati (deceased), he was to hold it in trust of the other family members as evidenced in the affidavit of the Applicant of 5th March, 2026. 12.It was submitted that the 1st Respondent on the other hand, wished to receive the award/ compensation to the exclusion of every other family member. That the Applicant had brought assessment inventory forms, grievance form, chief summons, Identity Cards of the family members, and a previous award and upon hearing of the suit, this Honourable court was likely to find in his favour. Reference was made to the holding of the court in the case of “Mrao Limited – Versus - First American Bank & 2 Others [2003] eKLR” on what amounts to a prima facie case. 13.The Learned Counsel argued that the Applicant was likely to suffer irreparable loss if the interlocutory injunction prayed for in the application was not granted. The court was referred to the case of:- “Pius Kipchirchir Kogo – Versus - Frank Kimeli Tenai (2018) eKLR” where the court held that irreparable injury means that the injury must be one that could not be adequately compensated for in damages. That the Applicant had provided evidence that he and his family have been in occupation of the suit property, that there were even graves of their deceased family (11 graves), and that the 2nd Respondent (NLC) had begun the process of acquisition. 14.It was submitted further that the Plaintiff had no other home save for the suit property which was their family/ ancestral land. If the intended compensation to the 1st Respondent was not restrained now, the moneys would be utilized by the 1st Respondent who may never be able to compensate the Applicant leaving the Applicant unable to relocate therefore homeless. That the Respondents have not shown that they can compensate the Applicant for any loss arising from the intended compensation to the 1st Respondent, if this application was not allowed and later the court found and declared the Plaintiff/ Applicant as a legal owner of the suit property or was entitled to the compensation. Further, the Commission (2nd Respondent) conceded and committed to hold in abeyance the compensation until the resolution of the ownership. 15.Lastly, the Learned Counsel submitted that the balance of convenience tilted in the Applicant’s favour. That it would be inconvenient to the Applicant not to obtain an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondents from actualizing compensation over the suit property as the matter was heard and determined than it would be to the Respondents if the application was to be allowed. Further, the Applicant sought for costs of the suit. VII. Analysis and Determination 16.I have keenly perused and assessed the Notice of Motion application dated 17th December, 2025 by the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, the responses by the Respondents herein and the written submissions and the authorities cited. I have also considered the provisions of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the statutes. 17.In order to attain a just and fair and reasonable decision hereof the Honorable Court has drawn the following three ( 3 ) issues for its determination.a.Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 17th December, 2025 by the Plaintiff/Applicant has any merit.b.Whether the Applicant herein is entitled to the orders sought.c.Who will bear the costs of the application? ISSUE No. a). Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 17th December, 2025 by the Plaintiff/Applicant has any merit. 18.Under this sub-heading the Plaintiff/Applicant herein has sought to be granted orders of injunction against the Defendants/Respondents seeking to restrain the 1st Respondent from interfering with the suit property by way of receiving compensation for compulsory acquisition from the 2nd Respondent over the suit property. 19.From the onset it is noted that the substratum of the suit is on the apprehension that compensation for acquisition of the suit property by the 2nd Respondent may be made to the wrongful party as according to the Applicant. The process of compulsory acquisition was laid down in the decided case of:- “Patrick Musimba – Versus - National Land Commission & 4 others (2016) eKLR” where the court held as follows:-“Under Section 107 of the Land Act, the National Land Commission (the 1st Respondent herein) is ordinarily prompted by the national or county government through the Cabinet Secretary or County Executive member respectively. The land must be acquired for a public purpose or in public interest as dictated by Article 40(3) of the Constitution. In our view, the threshold must be met: the reason for the acquisition must not be remote or fanciful. The National Land Commission needs to be satisfied in these respects and this it can do by undertaking the necessary diligent inquiries including interviewing the body intending to acquire the property.Under Sections 107 and 110 of the Land Act, the National Land Commission must then publish in the gazette a notice of the intention to acquire the land. The notice is also to be delivered to the Registrar as well as every person who appears to have an interest in the land.As part of the National Land Commission’s due diligence strategy, the National Land Commission must also ensure that the land to be acquired is authenticated by the survey department for the rather obvious reason that the owner be identified. In the course of such inquiries, the National Land Commission is also to inspect the land and do all things as may be necessary to ascertain whether the land is suitable for the intended purpose: see Section 108 of the Land Act.The foregoing process constitutes the preliminary or pre-inquiry stage of the acquisition.The burden at this stage is then cast upon the National Land Commission and as can be apparent from a methodical reading of Sections 107 through 110 of the Land Act, the landowner’s role is limited to that of a distant bystander with substantial interest.Section 112 of the Land Act then involves the landowner directly for purposes of determining proprietary interest and compensation. The section has an elaborate procedure with the National Land Commission enjoined to gazette an intended inquiry and the service of the notice of inquiry on every person attached. The inquiry hearing determines the persons interested and who are to be compensated. The National Land Commission exercises quasi-judicial powers at this stage.On completion of the inquiry the National Land Commission makes a separate award of compensation for every person determined to be interested in the land and then offers compensation. The compensation may take either of the two forms prescribed. It could be a monetary award. It could also be land in lieu of the monetary award, if land of equivalent value, is available. Once the award is accepted, it must be promptly paid by the National Land Commission. Where it is not accepted then the payment is to be made into a special compensation account held by the National Land Commission: see Sections 113- 119 of the Land Act.The process is completed by the possession of the land in question being taken by the National Land Commission once payment is made even though the possession may actually be taken before all the procedures are followed through and no compensation has been made. The property is then deemed to have vested in the National or County Government as the case may be with both the proprietor and the land registrar being duly notified: see Sections 120-122 of the Land Act.If land is so acquired the just compensation is to be paid promptly in full to persons whose interests in land have been determined: See Section 111 of the Land Act. This is in line with the Constitutional requirement under Article 40(3) of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his property of any description unless the acquisition is for a public purpose and subjected to prompt payment in full of just compensation.The Constitution dictates that acquisition be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution itself and any Act of Parliament. The Constitution itself only provides for just compensation being made promptly.The current procedure for acquisition of land by the State is as outlined above. As can be seen parliament took very seriously its constitutional duty to legislate on the State’s powers of deprivation or expropriation. Perhaps conscious of the emotive nature of land issues, the Legislature appeared scrupulous and contemplative”. 20.I have taken the initiative to set out the process for compulsory acquisition of land in order to put into perspective why the suit herein has merit. From the above case law, it is clear that as per the provisions of Section 122 of the Land Act, No. 6 of 2012 the land owner is involved directly for purposes of determining proprietary interest and compensation. After acquisition, compensation is to be paid promptly in full to persons whose interest in land has been determined. 21.From the above legal assertion, it is clear that the suit has merit in the sense that the court has to first establish who the legitimate owner of the suit property that has been compulsorily acquired in order for compensation to be paid to the rightful owner. the applicant is apprehensive that a determination as to the proprietary rights of the suit property has not been made and hence the suit. the application is therefore rightfully before court and has merit. ISSUE No. b). Whether the Applicant herein is entitled to the orders sought. 22.Under this Sub – title, the Honourable Court will be critically examining whether the application has any merit or not. The law regarding grant of interlocutory injunctions is found in Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 which provide as follows:“Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise:(a)That any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree;(b)That the Defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property in circumstances affording reasonable probability that the Plaintiff will or may be obstructed or delayed in the execution of any decree that may be passed against the Defendant in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal, or disposition of the property as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further order.” 23.The Applicant sought for an order of temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of the notice of motion. The conditions for the grant of interim injunctions is well settled in the case of:- “Giella – Versus - Cassman Brown & Co. Limited (1973) E.A 358” where it was held that: - “The conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction are 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 suffer irreparable injury, which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages. Thirdly, if the Court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience.” 24.The Applicant submits that he has established a prima facie case as the suit property is not registered in the Respondent’s name but that of his late father. According to the applicant, the suit property initially belonged to his late grandfather. That upon his passing on, it was agreed that the suit property be registered in the names of the Respondent’s father in trust for the rest of the family. As it stands, the suit property is still registered in the names of the 1st Respondents father who is deceased. That the Respondent has gone against the family wishes and agreement that compensation be shared equally among all the beneficiaries to the suit property and not just the 1st Respondent. The Applicant submitted that he will suffer irreparable loss and that the balance of convenience should tilt in its favour. 25.On the other hand, the Respondent avers that disputes with regards to the compensation shall not form the basis for grant of an injunction. That the suit property as evident from the title deed is registered in the names of his late father. That he is the rightful heir and beneficiary to the said parcel of land to the exclusion of the Applicant. He stated that he was thus entitled to the compensation and that the suit and application were geared towards frustrating him and denying him what was rightfully his. It was submitted that the Applicant shall be compensated by way of damages in the event they suffer loss. 26.What is clear from the arguments by the parties herein is that there is need to preserve property that is subject to court proceedings so as to protect the court from giving orders in vain upon hearing and determining a suit. Order 40, of Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 gives the court discretion to issue orders which are in the nature of an injunction restraining dealings on property pending further orders by the court. the 2nd Respondent in its response stated that it was yet to release the compensation funds to either party as it was awaiting the orders of the court with regards to who was the rightful proprietor of the suit property. 27.The court at this stage is not required to determine the merits and demerits of the Applicant’s claim. The court is only required to determine whether the Applicant has established a prima facie case. In the case of “Silvester Momanyi Marube –- Versus - Guizar Ahmed Motari & Another (2012) eKLR”, Odunga J. held that: -“In determining this application, I am well aware that at this stage the court is not required to make any conclusive or definitive findings of fact or law, most certainly not on the basis of contradictory affidavit evidence or disputed propositions of law and that in an application for injunction although the court cannot find conclusively who is to be believed or not, the court is not excluded from expressing a prima facie view of the matter and the court is entitled to consider what else the deponent to the supporting affidavit has stated on oath which is not true.” 28.The Applicant alleges that he will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by way of damages in the event that the 2nd Respondent compensates the 1st Respondent with the acquisition of the suit property. The Applicant infact annexed a copy of an agreement between the family members and who include the 1st Respondent with regards to compensation of the suit property. It is noted that compensation for 11 graves belonging to family members had already been paid put. In the case of “Pius Kipchirchir Kogo (Supra)” the court stated as follows; “Irreparable injury means that the injury must be one that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages and that the existence of a prima facie case is not itself sufficient. The applicant should further show that irreparable injury will occur to him if the injunction is not granted and there is no other remedy open to him by which he will protect himself from the consequences of the apprehended injury. 29.In the case herein, the Applicant is apprehensive that the 2nd Respondent is likely to pay off the compensation amount to the 1st Respondent hence rendering them landless and without any funds to get alternative parcels. It is noted that the Applicant availed evidence of pursuing the matter with the 2nd respondent through Frontman Consultants firm in charge of grievances but as has been seen, the 2nd respondent is yet to address the said issue. I believe the aspect of irreparable loss has been satisfactorily proved. The 1st respondent is adamant that he is the rightful owner of the suit property and is keen on receiving the compensation to the detriment of the other parties claiming ownership of the suit property. 30.On the balance of convenience, I wish to refer to the case of “Amir Suleiman - Versus - Amboseli Resort Limited (2004) eKLR” where Ojwang, Ag. J (as he then was), elaborated on what a “balance of convenience” means by stating that; - “The Court in responding to prayers for interlocutory injunctive reliefs, should always opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice.” Therefore, with regard to the balance of convenience, this court is satisfied that the same tilts in favour of the Applicant who should be given the chance to prove the alleged proprietary rights over the suit property. In conclusion, the Court dicern that the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought. issue No. c). Who will bear the costs of the application? 31.The issue of costs is at the discretion of the court. Costs mean an award that a party is granted at the conclusion of any legal action or proceedings in any litigation. The proviso of section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 holds that costs follow the events. By events it means the results or outcome in any legal action. 32.In the instant case, the Plaintiff/Applicant has successfully prosecuted its application. Therefore, in the given circumstances, is entitled to costs of this application to be paid by the Respondents. VIII. Conclusion and findings 33.Having conducted such an elaborate analysis to the framed issues herein, the honorable court now guided by the principles of preponderance of probabilities make the following orders:-a.That the Notice of Motion application dated 17th December, 2025 be and is hereby found to be meritorious and hence allowed.b.That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an injunction against the Defendants/Respondents and/or their agents from actualizing compensation regarding parcel Kwale/ Chigato/ 699, or any actions on selling, leasing or constructing under the suit property, pending the hearing and determination of the suit case.c.That for expediency sake, there be conducted a Pre – Trial Conference on 15th July, 2026 pursuant to the provision of Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 before ELC No. 2 Kwale. The said Court shall fix the matter for hearing appropriately.d.That costs of the application to be paid to the Plaintiff/Applicant by the Defendants/Respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH THE MICRO – SOFT TEAMS VIRTUAL MEANS, SIGNED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2026………………………………HON. MR. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI,ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURTATKwale.Ruling delivered in the presence of: -Mr. Daniel Disii, the Court Assistant.M/s. Barayian Advocate for the Plaintiffs/Applicants.Mr. Taabu Advocates for the Defendants/Respondents.