https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4421
The court found that the plaintiff had produced a title to the suit land and given a plausible account of possession and use, including a dam for farming and cattle rearing. Despite the search indicating registration in the 1st defendant's name, the applicant met the threshold for injunctive relief under Giella v...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 4421 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Julius Carey Kinyua Kibui; 1st Defendant: Francis Gitonga Mutegi; 2nd Defendant: Haddy Gitonga Muchangi; 3rd Defendant: The Land Registrar, Nanyuki
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case E008 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Court Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Ruling on Notice of Motion Filed Contemporaneously With the Suit
- Outcome
- Application allowed
- Judges
- ["LN Mbugua"]
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunction, Prima Facie Case, Fraudulent Title Claim, Land Ownership Dispute, Preservation of Land Pending Suit
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Julius Carey Kinyua Kibui
Plaintiff
Francis Gitonga Mutegi
1st Defendant
Haddy Gitonga Muchangi
2nd Defendant
The Land Registrar, Nanyuki
3rd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Ruling on Notice of Motion Filed Contemporaneously With the Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction
- 2 Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief
- 3 What orders should issue pending hearing of the main suit
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had produced a title to the suit land and given a plausible account of possession and use, including a dam for farming and cattle rearing. Despite the search indicating registration in the 1st defendant's name, the applicant met the threshold for injunctive relief under Giella v Cassman Brown, so the application succeeded.
Court Disposition
Application allowed
Orders
- The defendants are restrained from dealing with the suit property Nanyuki Marura Block 11/23 (Kariunga).
- The injunctive orders shall remain in force for one year.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NANYUKI** **ELCLC NO. E008 OF 2026** **JULIUS CAREY KINYUA KIBUI…………….…………….PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **FRANCIS GITONGA MUTEGI………………………..1ST DEFENDNT** **HADDY GITONGA MUCHANGI………..…………..2ND DEFENDANT** **THE LAND REGISTRAR, NANYUKI……………...3RD DEFENDANT** **RULING** 1. Before me is a notice of motion application dated 30.4.26 filed contemporaneously with the suit. The plaintiff seeks orders of injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit property Nanyuki Marura Block 11/23 (Kariunga).The application is premised on grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of the applicant. He avers that he is the registered owner of the suit property, but the 1st defendant acquired another title fraudulently. He further avers that the defendants have been making threats to dispossess him of the suit land. 2. The application was served but no response was filed. 3. This being an application for injunctive orders, the same shall be weighed against the requisite essentials set out in the celebrated case of **Giella vs Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358** thus: **“The conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction are now, I think, well settled in East Africa. First, an applicant must show 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 an award of damages. Thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience.”** 1. A perusal of the documents availed by the plaintiff reveals that he has a title to the suit land. However the search certificate indicates that the land is registered in favour of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has given a plausible account of how he has been utilizing the suit land where he has even built a dam to facilitate his farming and cattle rearing activities. To this end, I find that the plaintiff has met the threshold for issuance of the injunctive orders. 2. In the circumstances, the application dated 30.4.2026 is allowed but the injunctive orders shall remain in force for a period of ONE YEAR. Costs there of shall abide the outcome of the suit. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.** **LUCY N. MBUGUA** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** **Nancy Mwangi – C/A** **Francis Mwangi for plaintiff** **Absent for respondent**