https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4651

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MURANG’A** **ELC E061 OF 2025** **MARY WAITHIRA KARIUKI………………………………………..............1ST PLAINTIFF** **MARGARET WANJIKU CHEGE……………………………………...........2ND PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **PAUL ICHANGAI NJOGU.............................................................................1ST DEFENDANT** **PETER MWAURA KARIUKI......................................................................2ND DEFENDANT** **MARY NJERI GITHIOMI............................................................................3RD DEFENDANT** **TRASCILLA NYAGUTHIE KANYORO....................................................4TH DEFENDANT** **STEPHEN WANG’ONDU KANYORO.......................................................5TH DEFENDANT** **MARY MUTHONI KURIA...........................................................................6TH DEFENDANT** **DANIEL MBUGUA MWAURA....................................................................7TH DEFENDANT** **JEREMIAH KAMANDE MWAURA...........................................................8TH DEFENDANT** **GEOFFREY KIMANI CHEGE....................................................................9TH DEFENDANT** **JOHN NGUGI KABOGO............................................................................ 10TH DEFENDANT** **AND** **LAND REGISTRAR, MURANG’A...................................................................THIRD PARTY** **RULING** 1. This ruling is on the notice of motion dated 27-10-2025. The motion which is brought under Article 40 of the Constitution, **Sections 1A, 1B, 3A** and **63(e)** of the Civil Procedure Act, **Sections 152A, 152B, 152E** and **152F** of the Land Act, 68 of the Land Registration Act, **Order 40 rule 1** of the Civil Procedure Rules and all the enabling provisions of the law seeks two residual orders. 2. **That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the court be pleased to issue an order of inhibition, inhibiting the Respondents whether jointly and severally, their servants and agents, employees or anyone authorized by them or acting on their behalf from trespassing, interfering with, selling, disposing, charging and or dealing with land parcel No. Loc.5 Gitura/396 or any resultant subdivisions.** 3. **That the costs be provided for**. 4. The motion is based on fifteen(15) grounds and is supported by the affidavit of the first Plaintiff dated 27-10-2025. The gist of the motion and the grounds is as follows. One, the Applicants are biological daughters of Francis Kariuki Kibaka and Esther Wairimu Mararia who are both deceased. Francis is the registered owner of the suit land Loc.5/Gitura/396. After the death of Francis, a fraudulent succession cause No. 112 of 2011 was purportedly filed at Murang’a Law Courts. Pursuant to the forged orders issued in the fake succession cause the suit land was subdivided into parcels numbers 2035-40. The six parcels were later consolidated into parcels No. 2063. Parcel No. 2063 was subdivided into 2089-2097. There was further subdivision into 2347-9. There was also parcel No. 2317 which is registered to the 10th Respondent. Two, when the Applicants learnt of this, they reported the incident at Kandara Police Station. They also served the 1st Respondent with a demand and eviction notice dated 15-7-2025 through their advocates. The Respondent has not yet Responded to the said notice. Finally, the Plaintiffs fear that unless the court issues the orders sought, the suit property will continue to be subdivided and transferred through fraudulent and illegal transactions. 1. The motion is opposed by the 3rd Defendant who has sworn a replying affidavit dated 20-2-2026 in which she responds as follows. Firstly, the 3rd Defendant is not a party to the alleged fraud in Succession cause No. 112 of 2011 because she is a bonafide purchaser for value of parcel numbers Loc.5/Gitura/2090 and 2091 which she bought from the 1st Defendant. This was on 4-7-2025. The sale went through all the lawful processes and acquired title deeds for her land. Secondly, she stands to suffer loss if she is denied the right to enjoy her lawfully acquired land. 2. The 9th Defendant filed a replying affidavit dated 15-4-2026 which is in similar terms to the affidavit by the 3rd Defendant. The few additions are that since he acquired title to his two parcels which are Loc.5/Gitura/2096 and 2097, he occupied the land and has been utilizing it by farming and he has planted silver oak trees, napier grass, coffee and avocado trees among other developments. Further to the above, he has never been served with the demand and eviction notice dated 15-7-2025. 3. The submissions that I see on record have been filed by the 9th Respondent, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents and 7th and 8th Respondents. They are dated 15-5-2026, 22-5-2026 and 25-5-2026 respectively. The issues identified are as follows. 4. **Whether the Applicants have satisfied the threshold for interlocutory injunction.** 5. **Whether the Applicants have locus standi.** 6. **Whether the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents rightfully acquired the disputed property and the legal right over the same.** 7. **Whether the Applicants are entitled to the orders sought as against the 1st, 3rd, 4th , 5th and 6th Respondents.** 8. I have carefully considered the motion in its entirety including the grounds, the three affidavits on record, the written submissions and the issues identified therein as well as the law cited. I find that a determination of the issues identified will resolve the motion. 9. Starting with the issue of *locus standi,* I find that it is too early to make a determination on this point primarily because the pleadings have not closed. So far it is only the 9th Defendant who has filed a defence. Even then, his defence is not accompanied by a witness statement and documents. In the absence of full pleadings by all the parties, I do not have sufficient material to determine whether the Plaintiffs have locus. Prima facie however, the Plaintiffs have locus because they are saying that their father’s land has been fraudulently alienated. 10. As to whether the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th and 6th Defendants lawfully acquired the disputed land parcels, I do not have sufficient material to make that determination as they have not yet filed their defence and the accompanying material. It is only after the pleadings close and probably after a trial that I will be in a position to determine this issue. 11. The issue that the Court finds to be relevant at this stage of the proceedings is the one of whether the Applicants have satisfied the threshold for interlocutory injunction. It is my finding that they have. Allegations of fraud are so serious that the Court must freeze the status on the land until these allegations are proved or disproved. If the Court does not do that, the suit land will be in danger of alienation and the changing of its character. Luckily, none of the Defendants, so far has built a home on the land. Only the 9th Defendant has said that he is farming on his parcels. On the three conditions precedent to the grant of an order of injunction, the only one that I will consider is the balance of convenience. The other two conditions of prima facie case with a probability of success and irreparable loss that cannot be adequately compensated with an award of damages are not yet ripe in view of the inadequate pleadings. The balance of convenience tilts in favour of ordering that the status quo on the land and in the register be maintained until the suit is heard and determined. I will therefore allow prayer **‘b’** of the notice of motion dated 27-10-2025 minus the words “from trespassing”. Costs in the cause. Order accordingly. **Dated, signed and delivered virtually at Murang’a this 21st day of July, 2026.** **M. N. GICHERU** **JUDGE** **Delivered online in the presence of:-** **Court Assistant – Antony** **Plaintiff’s Counsel – Mr. Kithinji** **1st 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Defendant’s Counsel – Miss Muthoni** **7th and 8th Defendant’s Counsel – Mr Kinyua** **9th Defendant’s Counsel – Mr Mbue Ndegwa**