https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3937

Gulf Energy Holdings Ltd v Omolleh & another (Environment and Land Case E586 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3937 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3937 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Case E586 of 2025 CG Mbogo, J June 30, 2026 Between Gulf Energy Holdings Limited Plaintiff and Hon. John Rex Omolleh 1st Defendant Chief Land Registrar 2nd Defendant Ruling 1.Before me is the notice of motion dated 18th November, 2025 filed by the plaintiff/ applicant, and it is expressed to be brought under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Sections 13 and 14 of the Environment and Land Court Cap 8D, Order 40 Rule 1, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 8, 8A, 10 and 27 of the National Police Service Act seeking the following orders:-1.Spent.2.Spent.3.That pending the hearing and determination of this suit:-a.A temporary injunction be issued and directed at the 1st defendant, his servants or agents or any other persons acting on his behalf or under his instructions, restraining him and/or them from trespassing upon, entering, removing any structures on or in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s continued occupation and/or possession and operations or user of all that property known as land reference number 209/11610.b.A temporary injunction be issued directed at the 2nd defendant or any other persons acting on their instructions or purporting to exercise powers at the land registry, restraining them from taking any action that would interfere with, alter or affect the property rights of the plaintiff and/or their successors in title over all that property known as land reference number 209/11610.4.That this honourable court be pleased to direct that the orders issued herein be enforced by the Inspector General of Police and/or the Officer Commanding Station, Langata Police Station or such station as the Inspector General of Police may direct and/or assign.5.That the honourable court do issue any further orders or directions as may be just in these proceedings.6.That costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is premised on the grounds inter alia that the plaintiff/applicant is the registered owner of property known as LR. No. 209/11610 situated adjacent to the Texas cancer centre. The application is further supported by the affidavit of Nelson Owiye, the retail development manager of the plaintiff/applicant sworn on even date. 3.The plaintiff/applicant deposed that on 24th May, 2025 the 1st defendant/respondent, the member of county assembly Nairobi West ward in the company of his agents, entered on the suit property threatening to take possession thus trespassing onto the suit property. Further, that the continued acts of trespass by the 1st defendant/respondent undermine the plaintiff/applicant’s lawful proprietary rights and pose a threat to the safety and security of its employees. That despite complaints to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the 1st defendant/respondent is yet to cease with trespass, and the plaintiff/applicant is apprehensive that the 1st defendant/respondent may use his political influence to alter the status of the land title to the detriment of their rights. 4.The defendants/respondents did not file their response to the application. The same was canvassed through written submissions. The plaintiff/applicant filed its written submissions dated 27th February, 2026. I have considered the application and the written submissions filed. The issue for determination is whether the plaintiff/applicant has established a prima facie case to warrant the orders of temporary injunction. 5.The principles upon which the court should grant an injunction were set out in the case of Giella V Cassman Brown & Company Ltd 1973 EA 358 as follows:-“First, the applicant must show that he has 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 damages. Thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide the application on a balance of convenience.” 6.Further, in the case of Mrao V First American Bank of Kenya Limited [2003] eKLR Bosire JA (as he then was) stated as follows:“A prima facie case is one 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” 7.On whether the plaintiff/applicant has established a prima facie case, a copy of the title was annexed showing proof of ownership of the suit property L.R. No. 209/11610. It is also not contested that the suit property was transferred to the plaintiff/applicant on 10th December, 2019. On this issue, I am satisfied that the plaintiff/applicant has established a prima facie case. 8.On whether there is irreparable loss and damage that cannot be compensated by damages, the plaintiff/applicant argued that the agents of the 1st defendant/respondent who are ordinarily armed with weapons pose a threat to the safety of its employees, and the continued disruption of its operations severely prejudices its rights over the suit property. In the case of Nguruman Limited v Nielsen & 2 others [2014] KECA 606 (KLR), it was held:-“On the second factor, that the applicant must establish that he “might otherwise” suffer irreparable injury which cannot be adequately remedied by damages in the absence of an injunction, is a threshold requirement and the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate, prima face, the nature and extent of the injury. Speculative injury will not do; there must be more than an unfounded fear or apprehension on the part of the applicant. The equitable remedy of temporary injunction is issued solely to prevent grave and irreparable injury; that is injury that is actual, substantial and demonstrable; injury that cannot “adequately” be compensated by an award of damages. An injury is irreparable where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy or the injury or harm is such a nature that monetary compensation, of whatever amount, will never be adequate remedy.” 9.With no evidence to rebut the allegations made by the plaintiff/applicant, I am satisfied that the continued trespass, threats and intimidation by the 1st defendant/respondent is likely to interfere with the operations of the plaintiff/applicant. In my view, the plaintiff/applicant has met the second limb of the requirement. I have no doubt as to the balance of convenience since the same lies in favour of the plaintiff/applicant. 10.From the above, I find merit in the notice of motion dated 18th November 2025, and it is allowed in the following terms:-i.A temporary order of injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendants/respondents, their servants or agents, from trespassing upon, entering, removing any structures on or in any way interfering with the plaintiff/applicant’s continued occupation and/or possession and operations or user of all that property known as land reference number 209/11610 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.ii.The Officer Commanding Station, Lang’ata Police Station to ensure compliance with order (i) above.iii.Costs shall be in the cause.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. MBOGO C.G.JUDGE30/06/2026.In the presence of:Ms. Benson Agunga - Court assistantMs. Mwangi for the Plaintiff/ApplicantNo appearance for the Defendants/Respondents