https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4516

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA** **ELCLC NO. E013 OF 2026** **FELISTER WANJIRU GITAU………………………………………….PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **PETER NDIRITU MURAGE………………………………………..DEFENDANT** **RULING** 1. This Ruling is in respect of the Notice of Motion Application dated 27/01/2026 filed by the Plaintiff and brought under Articles 40 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law seeking the following: 2. **Spent.** 3. **Spent.** 4. **THAT** pending the hearing and determination of the suit herein, an order of injunction do issue restraining the Defendants by themselves, their agents, servants or whomsoever from in any manner trespassing, entering upon, wasting, alienating, threatening to attach and/or sell, attaching and/or selling, disposing or in any manner interfering with the suit property being **LR No. Juja/Kalimoni Block 8/490** situated at Juja. 1. T**HAT** an order restraining the Defendant from lodging any caution or inhibition against the suit property. 1. **THAT** an order directing the Officer in Charge of Station (OCS) of Juja Police Station to enforce compliance with the Court's orders. 1. **THAT** costs of this Application be borne by the Defendants on a full indemnity basis. 1. **THAT** any other and further order that the Court may deem fit and just to grant to preserve the suit property. 1. The Application is further supported by the Affidavit of **FELISTER WANJIRU GITAU** where in verification of her identity, she has produced a copy of her National Identification Card annexed and marked as **"FW-1"**. 2. The Deponent states that she is the sole registered proprietor of the suit property, legally described as **Land Reference No. Juja/Kalimoni Block 8/490** (the "suit property"), which she holds under a Certificate of Lease. She clarifies that the property was acquired entirely pre-marriage in the year 2018 using funds obtained from her late father’s insurance payout following the 1998 bomb blast, supplemented by additional funds provided by her mother. In proof of her absolute ownership, she has annexed a comprehensive bundle marked **"FW-2"**, comprising copies of the Certificate of Lease, an Official Search, the Sale Agreement, the Transfer of Lease, and all relevant proofs of payment. 3. Regarding her relationship status, the Deponent states that she married the Defendant in 2023, but the marriage has since irretrievably broken down, precipitating the filing of **Ruiru Divorce Cause No. E244 of 2025**. She affirms that this divorce matter remains pending and that there are no matrimonial property claims affecting the suit property. She emphasizes that the suit property does not constitute matrimonial property, having been acquired long before the marriage, and asserts that the Defendant has never contributed financially or otherwise toward its acquisition, maintenance, or development. Furthermore, she notes that the Defendant has never developed the suit property and independently owns other properties situated in Mwiki, Nyeri, and Nyahururu. 4. The Deponent further states that despite having no legal or equitable interest in the property, the Defendant has persistently harassed, threatened, and unlawfully interfered with her quiet possession and enjoyment. Specifically, on 15/01/2026, the Defendant unlawfully tampered with the CCTV surveillance systems installed at the suit property, an incident captured in photographs annexed and marked **"FW-3"**. The Defendant's unlawful conduct escalated under the cover of darkness on 21/01/2026 at approximately 6:00 p.m., and again on 22/01/2026 at about 8:30 p.m., when he accessed the property while masked and proceeded to padlock it, despite it already being secured. 5. These actions are similarly documented in the photographic evidence annexed under **"FW-3"**. Additionally, the Defendant has routinely installed and accessed unauthorized CCTV surveillance to illegally scan and extract private footage from within the premises without her consent, inflicting severe mental torture and clinical depression upon her. 6. The Deponent asserts that the Defendant’s actions constitute a gross and unjustifiable violation of her constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, and property. Due to this continuous harassment and psychological distress, she was forced to temporarily vacate the suit property on 25/12/2025 while concurrently undertaking facelift and renovation works. She formally reported these criminal activities to the police, resulting in the registration of **Occurrence Book (OB) No. 51/25/01/26** for the offences of creating a disturbance and malicious damage to property. A certified copy of the OB extract alongside her formal police statement is annexed and marked **"FW-4"**. 7. The Deponent further underscores that the Defendant knew or ought to have known that the property belongs exclusively to her, yet he has maliciously threatened to lodge a caution or inhibition against the title with the sole intention of unlawfully asserting ownership. She deposes that the continued trespass is wrongful, malicious, and a direct affront to her proprietary rights under Article 40 of the Constitution, warranting urgent judicial intervention to stem the abuse. She states that the suit property contains expansive proprietary interests whose exact financial value cannot be immediately ascertained, and if lost or wasted, would result in unrecoverable harm. 8. Concluding her deposition, the Deponent affirms that she has a formidable case with a *prima facie* path to success, and unless this Honourable Court grants the restraining and injunctive orders sought, she will continue to suffer irreparable harm, reputational injury, and systemic harassment at the hands of the Defendant. 9. The Defendant/Respondent in response filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 20/02/2026 and a Preliminary Objection dated 12/02/2026. 10. In the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Defendant/Respondent states as follows: 11. **THAT** this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter by dint of Article 162 of the Constitution, which sets out the structure of the Court hierarchy. 12. **FURTHER**, all that property described as LR No. Juja/Kalimoni Block 8/490 having been acquired and developed during the marriage between the parties. 13. **THAT** the Plaintiff has come to a Court of equity with dirty hands in that she is aware that the parties have not dissolved their marriage to date. 14. **THAT** the Plaintiff is guilty of misrepresentation of facts. 15. **THAT** I know of my own knowledge that I have a claim for continuity towards the acquisition and development of the property. 16. **THAT** further, the suit property is our matrimonial home. 17. **THAT** this matter falls outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and the same should be struck off with costs. 18. The Defendant/Respondent through the Replying Affidavit states that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are legally wedded husband and wife, having first entered into a union in the year 2017 when they began cohabiting at a property situated in Mwiki within Kasarani, Nairobi, under Land Reference Number 141/605. He deposes that the parties subsequently solemnized their marriage at St. Theresa Catholic Parish, a fact formally evidenced by a certified copy of the Marriage Certificate annexed to the Affidavit and marked as **"PNM-1"**. 19. Contradicting the Plaintiff's narrative, the Deponent asserts that from the year 2019 until December 2025, the parties continuously and jointly resided on the suit property, which served as their lawful matrimonial home. He strongly maintains that the property was acquired and systematically developed through the joint matrimonial efforts of both parties during the subsistence of the coverture. To substantiate his material and financial contributions to the acquisition, development, and maintenance of the suit property, the Deponent has submitted a composite bundle of documents annexed and marked as **"PNM-2"**, which includes a formal letter from the local Estate Committee confirming his direct contributions. 20. The Deponent further states the Plaintiff has approached this Honourable Court of equity with unclean hands by deliberately concealing material facts and engaging in flagrant misrepresentation. That according to the advise received from his Counsel, this Honourable Court, sitting as an Environment and Land Court, fundamentally lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit because the underlying subject matter constitutes matrimonial property. Consequently, the Deponent gives notice that he shall raise a Preliminary Objection on a point of law at the hearing of the application, seeking to have the suit struck out on the grounds that it is bad in law, frivolous, and entirely vexatious. 21. The Deponent categorically denies all allegations of harassment leveled against him, counter-arguing that it was the Plaintiff who willfully abandoned the matrimonial home. He deposes that the Plaintiff systematically stripped the home of all household goods, including his personal documents, and ultimately locked him out on 24/12/2025 by changing the security locks on the main gate. He dismisses the surveillance and tracking claims as baseless and ill-founded, explaining that his visits to the premises were strictly for the lawful purpose of retrieving his personal clothing. He observes that during those visits, he discovered that the Applicant had removed the existing CCTV cameras and altered the gate locks, thereby completely denying him access to the property to date. 22. He further reiterates his legitimate proprietary interest in the suit property, maintains that the Applicant has perjured herself before the Court, and states his intention to cross-examine the Plaintiff on the contents of her Supporting Affidavit. 23. In deposition as a direct rejoinder to the Defendant's Replying Affidavit dated 20/02/2026 the Plaintiff/Applicant filed a Further Affidavit sworn on 10/03/2026 and Grounds of Opposition to the Preliminary Objection dated 13/02/2026. I will here-below capture the thoughts of the Plaintiff/Applicant in the Further Affidavit and grounds of opposition. 24. In the Further Affidavit, she categorically reiterates that she acquired the suit property, **Land Reference No. Juja/Kalimoni Block 8/490**, in the year 2018. She emphasizes that this acquisition occurred long before any cohabitation or her eventual marriage to the Defendant in May 2023, as substantiated by the clear title documents annexed to her initial Supporting Affidavit dated 27/01/2026. To dismantle the Defendant’s assertion that cohabitation commenced in 2017, she sets the record straight by deposing that throughout 2017 and 2018, she resided exclusively with her mother at a house located on **Nairobi/Block 141/565** in Mwiki, alongside her primary school-aged daughter. She explains that during this period, she and the Defendant were merely dating, and while the Defendant owned a neighboring plot in Mwiki, they never cohabited. In proof of her family's separate residence, she has annexed the Certificate of Lease for her mother’s Mwiki property, marked as **"FW-1"**. 25. The Deponent clarifies that she and the Defendant only began cohabiting at the end of November 2019, moving into the suit property immediately upon the completion of its construction and following a trip to Israel which she fully funded. In verification of this timeline, she has annexed proof of payment for the said Israel vacation, marked as **"FW-2"**. She firmly re-states that the suit property was purchased and gradually developed using the insurance compensation settlement her family received following her late father’s tragic passing in the 1998 bomb blast. To authenticate the source of these independent funds, she has annexed correspondences and formal proof of the insurance settlement alongside her late father's Death Certificate under the bundle marked **"FW-3"**. 26. She further contends that the Defendant, despite being a man of means, has directed his personal finances entirely toward his own independent properties situated in Nyahururu, Nyeri, Mwiki, and a separate plot in Lang’ata. She asserts that the suit property does not constitute matrimonial property and exposes a deceptive attempt by the Defendant to mislead the Court. She explains that the bank transfers from the Defendant's account dated 16th and 31st January 2018, along with a share certificate he annexed, relate strictly to a completely different parcel of land known as **L.R. No. 8401 situated in Lang’ata**, which they jointly purchased through the Lang'ata Development Company Limited (Certificate No. 5964) and which is the proper subject of separate matrimonial proceedings. In proof of this distinct transaction, she has annexed the letter of allotment, subdivision scheme approvals, bank statements, and the share certificate for the Lang'ata property, marked as **"FW-4"**. 27. Furthermore, the Deponent states that the bank statements produced by the Defendant reflect transactions related to his own personal ventures and houses, adding that his meager salary as an employee of the Ministry of Health could not possibly have financed a project of the suit property's magnitude. Conversely, she notes that her own bank statements demonstrate that she consistently and solely funded the entire purchase, structural development, and interior furnishing of the home using her bomb blast compensation. She has annexed various service invoices and development transaction receipts marked as **"FW-5"**. 28. Addressing the specific entries within the Defendant's bank statements, the Deponent reveals that between 2018 and 2019, she routinely provided him with substantial sums of cash from her personal accounts solely to enable him to pay casual laborers and manage construction expenses on her behalf. She lists nine specific transfers made between 24/11/2018 and 8/10/ 2019 ranging from Kshs. 30,000 to Kshs. 100,000 and argues that it is disingenuous for the Defendant to mischaracterize her own money as his personal financial contribution. In validation of these withdrawals, she has annexed her Equity Bank and Co-operative Bank statements, marked as **"FW-6"**. She notes that she is an absolute stranger to the other names in the Defendant's bank statements, which lack receipts or invoices for alleged materials like solar panels or tiles, save for a transaction to Powermax for which she personally advanced him the funds. 29. She adds that she solely funded home improvements, including installing solar panels in 2020 and replacing them in 2025, paid for a water tank where the Defendant pocketed the change from the Kshs. 40,000 she gave him, and has consistently paid all utility bills, providing utility statements and invoices annexed as **"FW-8"**. Additionally, she points out that the Defendant did not own a vehicle during the construction period and instead drove her personal cars (a Toyota Auris, Toyota Rush, and Toyota Vanguard), proving that his claims of fuel contributions are misplaced and unrelated to property development. She has annexed copies of the vehicle logbooks marked as **"FW-9"**. 30. On a matter the Plaintiff characterizes as being of grave concern, she reports that following this Court's status quo order on 28/01/2026, a recent official search revealed a new entry on the register: a caution placed by the Defendant which appears to have been backdated to match her restriction entry, raising suspicion of a fraudulent attempt to violate the Court's orders. She has annexed the recent Green Card and official search certificate marked as **"FW-10"**. She also vehemently denies the Defendant's allegations that she breached the status quo order, explaining that on 20/02/2026, she briefly accessed the premises solely at the request of estate management to turn off overflowing water taps that were flooding the floors, and immediately secured the property thereafter while keeping her renovation works suspended. 31. The Deponent states that the Defendant voluntarily abandoned the marriage and the property on 19/12/2025, going as far as surrendering the house keys to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) before changing his position in bad faith. She details subsequent incidents of intimidation, stating that on 19/01/2026, the Defendant accompanied an individual claiming to be a DCI officer to intimidate her hired painter, and on 25/01/2026, returned twice once alone and later with a group of eight men attempting to force entry. 32. Upon being denied access, he unlawfully mounted an unauthorized CCTV camera on the fence line to spy on the premises. These criminal actions are formally recorded via **OB No. 46/11/12/25** and a statement filed with the DCI, which she has annexed and marked as **"FW-11"**. She also reiterates that the Defendant never signed the Sale Agreement, Transfer of Lease, or Land Control Board consents, nor has he ever paid land rates, which she settles independently, as shown by land rate receipts annexed and marked **"FW-12"**. 33. The Deponent relies on legal Counsel to argue that under Sections 24 and 26 of the Land Registration Act, her registration as the sole proprietor vests absolute and indefeasible ownership in her. She adds that under Section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act, the property is excluded from the matrimonial estate because it was acquired separately prior to marriage. Finally, she implores the Court to dismiss the Defendant's Preliminary Objection, arguing that because the Defendant’s objection relies heavily on highly contested facts rather than a pure point of law, it cannot stand *in limine* and must be set aside so the matter can proceed to a full inter-partes hearing. 34. In grounds of opposition filed against the Preliminary Objection the Plaintiff/Respondent offers formal resistance to the Defendant's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 12/02/2026, praying that the same be dismissed with costs on the basis that it fundamentally fails to satisfy the threshold of a proper Preliminary Objection in law. 35. The Plaintiff asserts that the Preliminary Objection does not raise a pure point of law as strictly required under the timeless judicial principles established in the locus classicus case of **Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696**. Instead, the Defendant’s objection introduces highly contested issues of fact that can only be resolved through the introduction of robust evidentiary proof. By asking the Court to rule on these matters *in limine*, the Defendant improperly invites the Court to determine disputed facts at a preliminary stage, whereas such matters are exclusively reserved for substantive determination through a full trial. 36. On the question of jurisdiction, the Plaintiff maintains that this Honourable Court is properly vested with jurisdiction pursuant to Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. The Plaintiff argues that because her claim directly concerns the ownership, title, occupation, use, and protection of land, alongside a plea for permanent injunctive relief against trespass and unlawful interference, the matter falls squarely within the statutory mandate of the Environment and Land Court. 37. Furthermore, the Plaintiff underscores that jurisdiction is strictly determined by the Plaintiff’s cause of action as set out in the Plaint. In this case, the Plaint seeks a declaration of ownership, a permanent injunction to ward off trespass, and orders restraining the registration of cautions, rather than a claim for the division and distribution of matrimonial property under Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court is properly invoked. 38. The Plaintiff further addresses the Defendant's equitable assertions, stating that the doctrine of clean hands is inherently factual and equitable rather than a pure point of law. Therefore, any allegations that the Plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands constitute factual defences that cannot be summarily determined at this stage. 39. Similarly, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's mere assertion that the suit property constitutes matrimonial property does not automatically divest this Honourable Court of its jurisdiction. Under Sections 6, 7, and 9 of the Matrimonial Property Act, whether a property is classified as matrimonial depends entirely on proof of acquisition during marriage or direct non-financial and financial contributions by a spouse, both of which are heavily contested evidentiary matters requiring trial. 40. Ultimately, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's Preliminary Objection constitutes a gross abuse of the Court process, deliberately calculated to derail and delay the hearing of the substantive dispute. She argues that the objection improperly attempts to morph contested evidentiary matters into pure points of law that would otherwise require testimony and documentation. The Plaintiff concludes that the Preliminary Objection is entirely misconceived, legally incompetent, and legally untenable, and maintains that it should be dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff. 41. The Defendant/Respondent Peter Ndiritu Murage, swore a Supplementary Affidavit on 2/04/2026 in response to the Further Affidavit filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant dated 10/03/2026. In the Supplementary Affidavit he denies that the suit property, **Land Reference No. Juja/Kalimoni Block 8/490**, was acquired independently of him, asserting instead that the parties commenced cohabitation on 4/02/2017, a defining date explicitly inscribed on their wedding rings. He states that after approximately one year of cohabitation, they began joint investments, culminating in the acquisition of their very first property on or about 8/02/2018, and that he was subsequently introduced to the previous owner of the suit property through a mutual family friend. 42. He cuts down the Plaintiff's assertion that she resided with her mother in Mwiki during 2017, stating that the Plaintiff's mother had already relocated to Riverside Estate in Juja, Kiambu County, in early 2017. He affirms that the parties relocated from their previous residence at **Nairobi Block 141/605** in or about November 2019 to settle into the suit property, which effectively served as their matrimonial home, and puts the Plaintiff to strict proof of any claims to the contrary. 43. Addressing the properties mentioned in the Plaintiff's pleadings, the Deponent states that the parties jointly own **Parcel No. A322 on LR No. 8401**, being **Nairobi/Block 221/270**, which was acquired through their collective marital efforts. He challenges the financial audit trail presented by the Plaintiff, deposing that her annexed bank statements and receipts do not align with the alleged insurance payouts or the actual construction timeline. He points out that commercial entities cited by the Plaintiff, such as Bimtech Manufacturers Limited, are entirely unrelated to the suit property, and alleges that a substantial portion of her funds was diverted to unrelated personal expenditures, including motor vehicle repairs, leaving her with insufficient capital to finance the structural development. 44. He reiterates that he substantially financed the structural development of the suit property using his own independent resources. He argues that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a proper accounting trail and has merely provided a generalized, unsubstantiated account of the construction costs, while asserting that his own production of M-Pesa confirmations and bank statements constitutes valid and statutory proof of payment within the jurisdiction of Kenya. He further claims absolute credit for funding the initial installation of the solar power system on the premises. 45. Rebutting the Plaintiff’s claim that he did not own vehicles during the critical construction periods, the Deponent provides an extensive list of six motor vehicles which he owned and continues to own, complete with their registration dates: **KBU 115S** (acquired 29/05/2017), **KCN 602J** (acquired 22/01/2019), **KCU 925A** (acquired 14/04/2019), **KDB 439S** (acquired 10/02/2021), **KMFY 149V** (acquired 8/12/2021), and **KDV 110D** (acquired 24/09/2025). 46. On the contentious matter of the register, the Deponent denies that he fraudulently or retroactively placed a restriction on the title, countering that his caution was lawfully registered prior to the issuance of the status quo order. He accuses the Plaintiff of filing the Court order late only after realizing a caution already existed, in a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. He further deposes that on 20/02/2026, the Plaintiff willfully disobeyed Court orders, having previously brought unauthorized individuals onto the suit property on 6/02/2026, and states that the available CCTV footage does not support her claims of water spillage or property wastage. 47. Further more he denies ever abandoning the marriage or the property, counter-charging that the Plaintiff unlawfully excluded him from the matrimonial home by changing the gate locks and removing household goods while he was away at work. He requests this Honourable Court to issue a directive forcing the Plaintiff to provide him with duplicate keys to the premises, maintaining that he has never relinquished his right of access. He recounts that during his lawful attempts to access the home to retrieve personal belongings, notably on 19/01/2026, he was confronted and threatened by individuals hired by the Plaintiff, requiring neighbors to intervene. 48. On the issue of financial contributions, the Deponent deposes that he directly participated in the acquisition and development of the land by depositing a lump sum of **Kshs. 1,800,000** on 15/01/2018 into the Plaintiff's **Co-operative Bank Account Number 0116416549100** as a part payment for the property. He verily believes that by virtue of this substantial contribution and the property's acquisition during the subsistence of the marriage, the Plaintiff holds the sole registered title in trust for both parties pursuant to Section 14 of the Matrimonial Property Act. Reaffirming that the suit property is a matrimonial asset, he concludes by stating that this Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to determine the dispute and swears that the contents of his Affidavit are true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. 49. At the last appearance in Court on 18/03/2026, the parties agreed to canvass the application by way of written submissions. The Plaintiff filed their written submissions dated 13/03/2026 and the Respondent filed their written submissions dated 2/04/2026. I have considered the said submissions in writing this ruling. **Disposal Orders and Determination** 1. The key issues arising for determination in this matter are two-fold: 2. *Whether the Defendant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 12/02/2026 is sustainable in law to oust the jurisdiction of this Court; and* 3. *Whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the threshold for the grant of an interlocutory injunction pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.* 4. Regarding the Preliminary Objection, the Defendant contends that the suit property constitutes matrimonial property, thereby divesting the Environment and Land Court of its jurisdiction. However, the law on Preliminary Objections is strictly circumscribed. In the *locus classicus* case of **Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696**, the Court of Appeal for East Africa authoritatively established the boundary of such objections, where Law, J.A. stated: ***"So far as I am aware, a Preliminary Objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises clear out of the pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, or a plea of limitation, or a submission that the plaint discloses no cause of action. A Preliminary Objection cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion."*** 1. In the same decision, Newbold, P. emphasized: ***"A Preliminary Objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion."*** 1. Applying these pristine principles, this Court finds that the Defendant's Preliminary Objection does not raise a pure point of law. The questions of whether the parties cohabited since 2017, whether the Defendant deposited Kshs. 1,800,000 into the Plaintiff’s account for development, or whether the property is a matrimonial home under the Matrimonial Property Act are heavily contested matters of fact. These issues cannot be determined *in limine* on an assumption of correctness, as they require an intensive evaluation of conflicting Affidavit evidence, bank statements, and cross-examination at trial. 2. To determine the status of the land at this juncture would require this Court to improperly ascertain facts and hold a mini-trial. Jurisdiction is determined by the Plaintiff’s cause of action as set out in the Plaint, which primarily seeks a declaration of land ownership and protection against trespass matters squarely within the statutory mandate of this Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. Consequently, the Defendant's Preliminary Objection is legally unsustainable and is hereby dismissed. 3. Turning to the substantive Notice of Motion application dated 27/01/2026, the Court must evaluate the tripartite equitable test set out in the celebrated case of **Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358**. To secure an interlocutory injunction, an Applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, show that they will suffer irreparable injury that cannot be adequately remedied by damages, and, if the Court is in doubt, satisfy the balance of convenience. 4. On the first limb, the Plaintiff has produced a registered Certificate of Lease and official searches demonstrating her sole registered proprietorship acquired in 2018. Under Section 24 of the Land Registration Act, registration vests absolute and indefeasible ownership in the proprietor. While the Defendant asserts a beneficial interest, the Court of Appeal in **Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR** stated that at this stage: ***"The party on whom the burden of proving a prima facie case lies must show a clear and unmistakable right to be directly threatened by an act sought to be restrained, the invasion of the right has to be material and substantive, and there must be an urgent necessity to prevent the irreparable damage that may result from the invasion. We reiterate that in considering whether or not a prima facie case has been established, the Court does not hold a mini-trial and must not examine the merits of the case closely. All that the Court is to see is that on the face of it the person applying for an injunction has a right which has been or is threatened with violation."*** 1. The Plaintiff has met this burden by showing a clear proprietary title and a serious threat of violation through documented instances of the Defendant changing locks, interfering with surveillance, and unprocedurally lodging a caution against the register. 2. In final determination, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has similarly established the risk of irreparable injury. The unauthorized entries by masked individuals, structural blockages, and conflicting entries on the land's Green Card pending a status quo order point toward an imminent danger of property wasting, alienation, and clouds on the title. Such proprietary interference, coupled with psychological distress, cannot be cured by a simple award of damages. 3. The balance of convenience tilts heavily toward protecting the registered owner’s quiet possession and preserving the *status quo* of the *res*, rather than allowing a non-registered party to take the law into his own hands before trial. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion application dated 27/01/2026 is found to be highly merited. The Court thus makes the following orders: 4. ***This Court hereby orders that a temporary injunction be and is issued restraining the Defendant, his agents, or servants from trespassing, entering, padlocking, or in any manner interfering with Land Reference No. Juja/Kalimoni Block 8/490 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.*** 5. ***The status quo order of 28/01/2026 is varied to allow the Plaintiff to resume immediate, unhindered occupation and residence of the property to oversee her renovations, and the Land Registrar is barred from maintaining any caution registered by the Defendant pending trial.*** 6. ***Costs of both the application and the Preliminary Objection are awarded to the Plaintiff.*** 7. Orders Accordingly. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT THIKA THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2026.** **…………………….** **MOGENI J** **JUDGE** **In the virtual presence of**: Miss Sande for the Plaintiff Mr. Kipchilat holding brief for Miss Wambugu for the Defendant Mr. Melita - Court Assistant **...........................** **MOGENI J** **JUDGE**