Defu Kenya Investment & Development Ltd v OCPD Ndeiya Station & 2 others (Miscellaneous Civil Application E098 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11254 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling)

Defu Kenya Investment & Development Ltd v OCPD Ndeiya Station & 2 others (Miscellaneous Civil Application E098 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11254 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11254 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Miscellaneous Civil Application E098 of 2025 B Mwamuye, J June 10, 2026 Between Defu Kenya Investment & Development Limited Applicant and OCPD Ndeiya Police Station 1st Respondent Samuel Ayuya Getembe 2nd Respondent Chen Bing 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.Before Court is a Notice of Motion Application dated 16th May 2025 seeking the following orders;a.Spent.b.Spent.c.Spent.d.Spent.e.THAT upon hearing and determination of this application, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order compelling the Officer Commanding Police Division (OCPD), Ndeiya Police Station, to forthwith reopen and restore access to the Applicant's premises situated on Land Reference Number Ndiuni/ Nditiethu/161, Land Reference Number Ndiuni/ Nditiethu/I, Land Reference Number Ndiuni/ Nditiethu/2 and Land Reference Number NGUIRUB1/ Ndiuni/517B, and to cease and desist from any further acts interfering with the Applicant's operations thereon.f.THAT upon hearing and determination of this application this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the OCPD Ndeiya Police Station, whether by itself, its agents, officers, or assigns, from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the Applicant's proprietary rights, possession, occupation, or operations on Land Reference Number Ndiuni/Nditiethu/161, Land Reference Number Ndiuni /Nditiethu/I, Land Reference Number Ndiuni/ Nditiethu/2 and Land Reference Number Nguirub1/ Ndiuni/517B.g.THAT upon hearing and determination of this application this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent, Samuel Ayuya Getembe, and 3rd Respondent Chen Bing whether by themselves, his servants, agents, surrogates and/or employees, from trespassing upon, interfering with, entering, accessing, and/or otherwise dealing in any manner whatsoever with the Applicant's parcels of land known as Land Reference Number Ndiuni/ Nditiethu/161, Land Reference Number Ndiuni/ Nditiethu/I, Land Reference Number Ndiuni/ Nditiethu/2 and Land Reference Number Nguirubi/ Ndiuni/517B.h.THAT the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The Application was based on the grounds on its face and on the Supporting Affidavit of Sun Yuhang sworn on 16TH May 2025. In it he stated that on 1st April 2025 this court issued temporary injunctive orders in Misc. Application E004 of 2025 which restrained the Respondent therein from dealing with the assets on Fujian Shixin Investment and Developers (Kenya) Limited and directed the impoundment and safekeeping of Motor Vehicles at Ndeiya Police Station pending the hearing and determination of the application of the application before the Court. 3.The Court on 14th May 2025 issued fresh orders and directed the maintenance of status quo pending the issuance of a Ruling on the Application on 21st May 2025. The OCPD of Ndeiya Police Station, the 1st Respondent herein, is alleged to have disregarded those orders and proceeded to carry out a full operational shutdown of DEFU Kenya Investment & Development Limited’s sites notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant herein was neither a party in those proceedings nor were the said orders directed at them. 4.The Applicant contends that the operational sites situated on Land Reference Number Ndiuni/Nditiethu/161, Land Reference Number Ndiuni/Nditiethu/I, Land Reference Number Ndiuni/Nditiethu/2, and Land Reference Number NGUIRUBI/Ndiuni/517B remain arbitrarily and unlawfully closed. The Applicant states that this has resulted in the shutting down of operations and the continued closure of the Applicant's premises not only constitutes a direct contravention of the Court's Order dated 14th May 2025 but also perpetuates grave injustice, resulting in sustained financial haemorrhage and the complete paralysis of both the Applicant's business. 5.The Application was opposed by the Replying Affidavit of Chen Bing dated 4th August 2025. In it he indicated that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have never at any material time trespassed upon or interfered with the Applicant’s occupation of Land Reference Number Ndiuni/Nditiethu/ 161 or any other whether directly or through agents, servants or employees. 6.In addition, it was contended in opposition that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were never parties in Misc Application E004 of 2025 and have therefore been erroneously sued as parties in the present Application. He added that the Applicant herein has deliberately failed to disclose to this court that there are assets linked to Fujian Shizuit Investment which are being held within the Applicant’s premises. The actions complained of including any closure of access to premises were undertaken by law enforcement and not by the 2nd or 3rd Respondents. 7.The Application was canvassed by way of written submission and the issues that arise for determination are:a.Whether to issue an order compelling the Officer Commanding Police Division (OCPD), Ndeiya Police Station, to reopen and restore access to the Applicant's premises situated on Land Reference Number Ndiuni/Nditiethu/161, Land Reference Number Ndiuni/Nditiethu/I, Land Reference Number Ndiuni/ Nditiethu/2, and Land Reference Number NGUIRUB1/Ndiuni/ 517B; and,b.Whether to grant the injunctions as prayed. 8.It is trite that a mandatory order of injunction is final in nature and should be granted in very clear cases as was held in the case of Kenya Breweries Limited –vs- Okeyo EA LR 2002 1EA page 110 in which the Court of Appeal stated as follows:“A mandatory injunction ought not be granted on an interlocutory application in the absence of special circumstances and then only in clear cases either where the Court though that the matter ought to be decided at once or where the injunction was directed at a simple and summary act which could be easily remedied or where the defendant had attempted to steal a match on the plaintiff. Moreover, before granting a mandatory injunction, the Court had to feel a high degree of assurance that at the trial it would appear that the injunction had rightly been granted that being on a different and higher standard than was required for a prohibitory injunction” 9.The Applicant submitted that Article 159 (1) of the Constitution vests judicial authority in the court and commands that all persons shall respect and uphold the authority of the courts. By acting in defiance of the subsisting order, the Respondents undermine the judicial process and perpetuated commercial harm upon the Applicant. 10.The Applicant further submitted that the continued closure of the Applicant’s premises amounts to contempt of court and a violation of Article 73 of the Constitution of Kenya. The Respondents’ conduct is therefore arbitrary unlawful and their application of those orders to the Applicant's properties amounts to an abuse of authority and contravention of Article 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, which guarantees the right to fair administrative action. 11.The 2nd and 3rd Respondents submitted in opposition that the Applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case as the actions complained of were undertaken by law enforcement and not by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. It was further argued that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were not parties to Misc. Application E004 of 2025 and therefore they have been erroneously joined in this matter. Additionally, it was argued that although the Applicant was not a party in Misc Application E004 of 2025, the Applicant has deliberately failed to disclose to this Court that vital assets belonging to Fujian Shixin Investment and Developers (Kenya) Limited were being held by the Applicant in their premises and therefore the Applicant herein was serving as a proxy or agent or surrogates of Chen Shuitong the Respondent in Misc. Application No. E004 of 2025. 12.It was further argued that the Applicant has filed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages if the injunction is not granted. It was therefore the Respondents’ argument that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements need for the grant of the orders sought and thus the Application herein should be dismissed with costs. 13.It was further argued this court does not have the jurisdiction to determine this Application as the reliefs sought are based on allegations of prevention or restraint of trespass on and of another’s land; which is a preserve of the Environment and Land Court and not the High Court. 14.Having carefully considered the Application and the submissions of the parties the Court finds that the orders sought relate to the rights and interests in land and in particular seeks injunctive reliefs touching on the occupation of land. Article 162 (2) (b) of the Constitution makes provision that the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes concerning land which includes applications for injunctive reliefs. 15.The Application, as framed, is squarely a trespass of land application, with no other limbs that would make it a mix-grill matter that could be determined in favour of the Applicant by the High Court. This Application, therefore, raises matters and seeks reliefs that the High Court has no jurisdiction over. 16.Lack of jurisdiction is entirely determinative of the Application and thus there is no need for and indeed no foundation upon which this Court could, a substantive analysis of the issues raised. 17.In light of the above analysis and findings, I find that this Court therefore lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the Application and consequently the Application dated 16th May 2025 is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 18.File closed accordingly. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU ON THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2026…………………………………………………………BAHATI MWAMUYE MBSJUDGE