Dhanani & another v Musei & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E127 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2547 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

Dhanani & another v Musei & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E127 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2547 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

Plaintiffs established a prima facie case with probability of success, stand to suffer irreparable harm if property is not preserved, and balance of convenience favours preservation; Defendants failed to demonstrate grounds for setting aside interim orders.

Citation
[2026] KEELC 2547 (KLR)
Parties
1st Plaintiff/applicant: Saroj R. Dhanani; 2nd Plaintiff/applicant: Ravi Dhanani (Administrator of the Estate of Vijaykumar Dharamshi); 1st Defendant/respondent: John K. Ole Musei; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Jason Koileken Seki; 3rd Defendant/respondent: Land Registrar, Kajiado West; 4th Defendant/respondent: The Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Case Number
Environment and Land Case E127 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (interlocutory) / Ruling on Applications for Temporary Injunction and Variation of Interim Orders
Outcome
Plaintiffs’ application allowed; Defendants’ application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Preservation of Property, Fraudulent Title, Competing Land Titles
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Preservation of Property Fraudulent Title Competing Land Titles

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 8 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saroj R. Dhanani

1st Plaintiff/applicant

Ravi Dhanani (Administrator of the Estate of Vijaykumar Dharamshi)

2nd Plaintiff/applicant

John K. Ole Musei

1st Defendant/respondent

Jason Koileken Seki

2nd Defendant/respondent

Land Registrar, Kajiado West

3rd Defendant/respondent

The Attorney General

4th Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (interlocutory) / Ruling on Applications for Temporary Injunction and Variation of Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plaintiffs have satisfied the threshold for interlocutory injunctive and preservatory orders
  2. 2 Whether Defendants have demonstrated sufficient cause to set aside or vary interim orders
  3. 3 Whether the root of Defendants’ title is lawful or tainted by fraud

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs established a prima facie case with probability of success, stand to suffer irreparable harm if property is not preserved, and balance of convenience favours preservation; Defendants failed to demonstrate grounds for setting aside interim orders.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs’ application allowed; Defendants’ application dismissed.

Orders

  • Temporary injunction restraining Defendants and persons claiming under them from dealing with KAJIADO/NTASHART/511 and subdivisions pending suit determination.
  • 3rd Defendant directed to provide complete records relating to suit property and subdivisions.