https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2980

Muguna v Muguna (Environment and Land Case E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2980 (KLR) (12 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2980 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Meru Environment and Land Case E038 of 2025 BM Eboso, J May 12, 2026 Between Charity Kananci Muguna Plaintiff and Mark Kimathi Muguna Defendant Ruling 1.The plaintiff and the defendant are siblings. The plaintiff is alleged to reside in the United States of America while the defendant is alleged to reside in Kenya. The plaintiff instituted this suit vide a plaint dated 3/12/2025. She sought the following reliefs against the defendant:i.An order restraining the defendant from selling, disposing, alienating and/or transferring Plot Number 47 Kionyo Market.ii.An order for the defendant to give an account of all the income received on account of the business transactions of the rents and parking on Plot Number 47 Kionyo Market.iii.An order for the defendant to give a detailed account of all the business transactions with respect to the sale of fuel and petroleum products in the name of Kionyo Filling Station Limited on Plot Number 47 Kionyo Market.iv.The court be pleased to make an equitable order that can justifiably determine the rightful and appropriate shareholding of the parties herein based on monetary contribution.v.The defendant be compelled to provide an inventory on the supplies and products obtained by the company, Kionyo Filling Station Limited, as well as the payments settled and those outstanding to the suppliers.vi.Based on the inventory, an order compelling the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the accruing debts to suppliers.vii.The court compel the defendant for specific performance with regard to the property LR Abogeta/U-Kithangari/3286.viii.The court award compensation in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant for the monies sent in the purchase of Marimanti property.ix.The Honourable Court to make a finding that the defendant is in breach of the trust and owes a fiduciary duty and responsibility to the plaintiff and compensate the plaintiff accordingly for all the monies owed to her including monies sent for the defendant’s properties and the petrol station.[ 2.Together with the plaint, the plaintiff filed a notice of motion dated 3/12/2025, seeking the following interlocutory orders:a.Spentb.Spentc.That this Honourable court be pleased to issue an injunction and inhibition order stopping and restraining the defendant by himself, his servants, agents and/or employee(s) from interfering with the running and management of the business of petrol station, selling of petrol and the petroleum products on the premises and the structures erected on land parcel 47 Kionyo Market Meru County and including but not limited to the rents collection and parking fees all on land parcel 47 Kionyo Market Meru County.d.Spente.That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant on order of injunction restraining any third party or the defendant whether by themselves, or their authorized agents, auctioneers and or any of them or otherwise from offering for sale, either by public auction or private treaty of that parcel of land namely land parcel number 47 Kionyo Market Meru County pending hearing and determination of the main suit.f.That this Honourable Court be pleased to order the defendant to disclose all the suppliers and any other person(s) that he may have pledged or incurred debt on behalf of Kionyo Filling Station or the petrol business herein and giving the specific details and amounts due and payable and stop incurring such further debs till the hearing and determination of this suit.g.That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order stopping and restraining the defendant from interfering with the smooth running and the management of the petrol station and other related activities within the premises by the employed persons and also the supply of the commodity being undertaken by the plaintiff herein pending the hearing and determination of this suit.h.That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue any other order that it may deem fit and just to issue for the good of the petrol station business and other related activities within land parcel plot number 47 Kionyo Market Meru County.i.That the costs of this application be met by the defendant at any rate. 3.The said application is the subject of this ruling. It was premised on the grounds outlined in the motion and in the applicant’s affidavit dated 3/12/2025. The application was canvased through written submissions dated 29/1/2026 and further submissions dated 16/2/2026, filed by M/s Gitonga Muriuki & Co Advocates. The application is opposed by the defendant/respondent. 4.The case of the applicant is that she has sent to the respondent in excess of Kshs 15,000,000 towards the establishment and registration of petrol station business on Plot No 47, Kionyo Market, Meru County. The respondent has “savagely unscrupulously and recklessly misused, misapplied and embezzled the said money”. The respondent has, through fraud and forgery, excluded her from the said business. The respondent has fraudulently caused Plot No 47, Kionyo Market, to be registered in his name as the sole owner. 5.The applicant adds that the respondent has recklessly incurred several debts using Plot No 47, Kionyo Market, and has failed to service the debts, prompting creditors to initiate court proceedings against him, among them, Meru SCC COMM E510 of 2025 in which the creditor has obtained judgment against the respondent. She faults the respondent for being reckless and negligent. Lastly, she contends that the respondent has failed to give accounts relating to the business enterprise and has completely excluded her from the business despite her contribution of over Kshs 15,000,000. She urges the court to grant her the above interlocutory injunctive orders on the above grounds. 6.The respondent opposed the application through a replying affidavit dated 23/12/2025; further affidavit dated 12/2/2026; and written submissions dated 12/2/2026, filed by M/s CarlPeters Mbaabu & Co Advocates. The case of the respondent is that the application is based on glaring lies and deliberate distortions/misrepresentation of facts. He contends that he acquired plot number 47, Kionyo Market, using his own resources and built a petrol station on it using his own funds earned from tea and coffee farming, rental proceeds and other businesses which he runs. 7.The defendant states that his only engagement with the applicant involved purchase of land parcel number Abogeta/U-Kithangari/3286 on behalf of the applicant and construction of two permanent houses for the plaintiff on their late father’s land, which he did to the applicant’s satisfaction. It is his case that the money which the applicant sent to him was for purchase of Abogeta/U-Kithangari/3286 and construction of the two houses. He urges the court to reject the application. 8.The court has considered the application, the response to the application and the parties’ respective submissions. The key question to be determined in this ruling is whether the application dated 3/12/2025 meets the criteria upon which a trial court exercises jurisdiction to grant an ordinary interlocutory injunction. 9.Before the above issue are disposed, there is need for the court to pronounce itself on the legal question of jurisdiction over some of the claims in this cause. I have taken liberty to do so because every court is enjoined to remain alive to the question of its jurisdiction, whether prompted or suo motto. The court has looked at the various reliefs that are sought in the main suit. It has also looked at the interlocutory reliefs that are sought in the application under consideration. Many of them relate to distinct and severable causes of action and fall outside the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. What properly falls within the jurisdiction of this court are: (i) the dispute relating to ownership of Plot Number 47, Kionyo Market; and (ii) the dispute relating to ownership of land parcel number Abogeta/U-Kithangari/3286. Claims relating to accounts, shareholding in the petrol station business, inventory of supplies and goods purchased and monies received, all fall outside the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. The said claims can be properly severed from the dispute relating to ownership of the two parcels and can be properly ventilated in a court seized of jurisdiction. 10.Not too long ago, the Court of Appeal outlined the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court in Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna & 5 others; Civil Appeal No 83 of 2016 as follows: -“While exclusive, the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court is limited to the areas specified under Article 162 of the Constitution, Sections 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, and Section 150 of the Land Act; none of which concern the determination of accounting questions. Consequently, this dispute does not fall within any of the areas envisioned by the said provisions.” 11.Secondly, it is noted from the reliefs sought in the plaint and from the interlocutory reliefs sought in the notice of motion dated 3/12/2025 that whereas the reliefs sought in the main suit relate to both land parcel number Abogeta/U-Kithangari/3286 and Plot No. 47 Kionyo Market, the application dated 3/12/2025 does not seek any reliefs relating to parcel number Abogeta/U-Kithangari/3286. Consequently, the specific question to be answered in this ruling is whether the application under consideration meets the criteria for granting an interlocutory injunctive relief in relation to Plot No 47, Kionyo Market. 12.The relevant criteria on a trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction was outlined by the Court of Appeal for East Africa in the case of Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358. First, the applicant is required to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success. Secondly, the applicant is expected to demonstrate that he would stand to suffer irreparable injury/damage that may not be adequately indemnifiable through an award of damages if the interlocutory injunction is declined. Thirdly, should the court have doubt on both or either of the above two requirements, the application is to be disposed based on the balance of convenience. 13.Over the years, our superior courts have developed an additional principle relating to pronouncements that should be avoided at the stage of disposing a plea for interlocutory injunction. As a general principle, definitive or conclusive pronouncements should not be made on the key issues in the dispute at the stage of disposing an interlocutory application. Definitive and conclusive pronouncements on key issues are to be reserved to be made in the judgment or other final disposal of the case. 14.The Court of Appeal defined a prima facie case in Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others (Civil Appeal 39 of 2002) as follows:“A prima facie case in a civil application includes but is not confined to a “genuine and arguable case.” It is a case which, on the material presented to the court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter.” 15.Has the applicant made out a prima facie case demonstrating that she has an interest in Plot No 47, Kionyo Market? At this interlocutory stage, the applicant has not tendered any documentary evidence relating to joint acquisition of the above plot. She has not tendered any documentary evidence demonstrating that she entered into a compliant land acquisition agreement with the defendant in which they agreed to jointly acquire Plot No 47 Kionyo Market and pursuant to which she contributed money towards the joint acquisition of the said plot in furtherance of the agreement. The defendant has stated that he solely acquired the above plot and that the only money which the plaintiff sent to him related to purchase of Abogeta/U-Kithangari/3286 and construction of two permanent houses for the plaintiff on her father’s land. In the absence of any documentary evidence of joint acquisition of Plot No 47 by the two adult siblings, I do not think the applicant has demonstrated that she has a vested interest in Plot No 47 Kionyo Market, which deserves to be protected through interlocutory injunctive orders. If her interest is in form of shares in the business known as Kionyo Filling Station, that is a dispute for a different court; it is not a dispute for the Environment and Land Court which exercises clearly defined and restricted jurisdiction. 16.Has the applicant demonstrated a case of irreparable damage that may not be indemnifiable through an award of damages? The case of the applicant in the notice of motion dated 3/12/2025 is that she sent to the respondent in excess of Kshs 15,000,000 towards establishment and registration of a petrol station business. Were the plaintiff to ultimately prove that she gave the above money towards a joint acquisition of Plot No 47 Kionyo Market, the same has been quantified and would be recoverable as damages. 17.The court has no doubt about the applicant’s failure, at this point, to demonstrate an interest in Plot No 47 Kionyo Market and about the sufficiency of damages as an adequate remedy in the event of ultimate success by the applicant. 18.The result is that the application dated 3/12/2025 does not meet the criteria for granting interlocutory injunctive orders. Consequently, the same is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit. In line with the general principle on costs – that costs follow the event, the applicant shall bear costs of the application. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.B M EBOSO [MR]JUDGE