https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4186

Kenya Builders & Concrete Company Ltd v Mukabana (Suing as administrator of the Estate of the Late Peter Keya Were) (Environment and Land Case 1001 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 4186 (KLR) (7 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4186 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Case 1001 of 2013 CA Ochieng, J July 7, 2026 Between Kenya Builders & Concrete Company Limited Plaintiff and Naman Ndonji Mukabana (Suing As Administrator Of The Estate Of The Late Peter Keya Were) Defendant Ruling 1.On 13th November 2025, this Court issued orders of non-interference with the suit property. Subsequently, the Defendant filed the Notice of Motion dated 5th December 2025 seeking assistance from Kayole Police Station in enforcing the said orders. 2.The Plaintiff opposed the application and filed the Notice of Motion dated 11th December 2025 in which it seeks the following Orders:a.Spent.b.That pending the hearing and determination of this application, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an injunction against the Defendant/ Respondent whether by themselves, their servants and/ or agents restraining them from in any manner entering or trespassing upon the Plaintiff/ Applicant’s property known as L.R. No. 7086 (Original No. 6825/1) Mihango, Embakasi, Nairobi.c.Spent.d.That the OCPD, Embakasi Division be ordered to enforce the Orders.e.That the costs of this application be provided 3.The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the supporting affidavit of Dinesh Premji Patel, the Plaintiff’s Managing Director. He avers that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of L.R. No. 7086 (original No. 6825/1) comprising about 32.8 acres. Further, that on 13th November 2025, this Court issued Orders directing parties not to interfere with the suit land, following allegations from the bar, by the Defendant’s Advocate that the Plaintiff was interfering with its own property, and that the Defendant extracted the said Orders on 26th November, 2025 and served the same on the OCS Kayole Police. 4.He claims that on 10th December 2025, he received intelligence reports that the Defendant had mobilized a gang of over fifty (50) individuals to invade the suit land. Subsequently, he called the Plaintiff’s Manager, one Jeremiah Nzioka to alert the Police at Kayole Police Station who were aware of the long-standing orders issued by Court barring trespass upon the suit property. Further, that at about 10.00 am on the said date, the gang scaled the perimeter wall around the suit property and entered, wielding weapons and threatening guards on location who had to run. 5.He avers that the OCS Kayole Police Station later arrived with a contingent of six (6) policemen to avert the incident but the gang promised to stage a come-back, which they did on 10th December 2025. He explains that between the time the Ruling and Orders of injunction were issued on 16th August 2013 and when the status quo orders were issued herein and conveniently misrepresented by the Defendant as orders for re-entry onto the suit property, there have been no other attempt to enter the suit property. 6.He contends that unless the orders for injunction issued on 16th August, 2013 by Lady J. Gitumbi are adhered, the Defendant is hell- bent on mobilizing gangs to illegally re-occupy the suit property. Response 7.The Defendant filed a replying affidavit in opposition. He avers that the Court Orders of status quo of 13th November 2025 meant that all the parties should keep off the suit property but the Plaintiff continued working thereon and selling portions of it, to this end, he annexed a newsletter of sale and avers that he had to involve the police. He also annexed a conveyance document which he avers shows that the suit property was transferred to Peter Keya (deceased), thus he insists that the Defendant has proprietary rights in the suit property, contrary to the Plaintiff who produced documents showing that it bought the suit property from Nyoike Investment Ltd, a company that does not exist. 8.In response, the Plaintiff filed a supplementary affidavit sworn by its Managing Director. He insists that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit property and that the newsletter for sale annexed by the Defendant is undated and misleading as property L.R. No. 7086 converted to Nairobi Block 220/408 is a Freehold and not Leasehold as described therein. Further that the purported Conveyance annexed by the Defendant is a blatant forgery and is unsupported by any genuine search from the Lands Registry. 9.He also insists that the Plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land for a period exceeding thirty (30) years, since 7th May 1990 through Lalji Patel / Devshi Patel their patriarch who transferred the said property to the Plaintiff. He also points out that the suit property was converted to Nairobi Block 220 / 408 with the Plaintiff as the lawfully registered owner. 10.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Submissions 11.The Plaintiff submits that it has met the threshold for grant of injunctions as stated in Giella v Cassman Brown & Company Limited [1973] EA. Further, that it has established a prima facie case having demonstrated ownership of the suit property by exhibiting receipts, agreements and other documents of ownership. It also submits that it has been in continuous uninterrupted possession, following a conveyance dated 7th May 1990 and that the threat posed by the Defendant is real and calls for protection. 12.The Defendant did not file written submissions. Analysis and Determination 13.I have considered the instant Notice of Motion application including the respective affidavits and submissions and the only issue for determination is whether the Plaintiff has met the threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from trespassing on L.R. No. 7086 (Original No. 6825/1), Mihango. However, the Plaintiff framed the prayer to be granted “pending determination of the instant application”, therefore it is essentially spent. 14.Be that as it may, the Plaintiff asserts ownership of the suit property, which has since been converted into Nairobi Block 220/408 in its name. It contends that it has been in possession of the suit property for over thirty (30) years. Further, that there has not been interference with the suit property from 16th August, 2013, when the Court issued Orders of injunction restraining interference, until 13th November 2025 when the Defendant misconstrued the status quo orders issued herein to justify an unlawful invasion of the suit property by an armed gang. 15.On its part, the Defendant disputes the Plaintiff's title, and relies on a conveyance allegedly showing transfer of the property to Peter Keya Were(deceased), to claim ownership. He contends that the Plaintiff's root of title traces back to a company, which allegedly does not exist. He insists that despite this Court’s status quo orders of 13th November 2025, the Plaintiff continues to interfere with the suit property by selling portions of it and carrying out excavations. 16.I will rely on the principles on injunctions as established in the case of Giella v Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358, to determine whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case to warrant the Orders of injunction as sought. 17.On perusal of the Court record, I note the Plaintiff had previously filed a Notice of Motion application dated the 15th August, 2013. Justice Mutungi vide his Ruling delivered on the 24th October, 2014 allowed the said application in terms of prayers No. 3 and 4. 18.Further, I note prayer No. 4 of the said application states thus:‘That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the Defendant/ Respondent by itself or through its agents, servants or assigns be restrained by a temporary injunction from closing down and / or in any way interfering with the Plaintiff/ Applicant’s business or in any manner entering, trespassing upon or demarcating the Plaintiff/ Applicant’s property known as LR No. 7086 (Original No. 6825/1), Mihango, Embakasi , Nairobi and from constructing, developing or erecting any buildings or structures thereon or any part thereof.’ 19.From a perusal of the prayer above, it is clear that the Court had already granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the suit property pending outcome of the suit. The Defendant has not indicated whether the said Orders were ever set aside. 20.In the foregoing, I find the instant Notice of Motion application merited but since the Orders are already spent, I direct that parties should comply with the Orders issued on the 24th October, 2014, which I have cited above. I further direct that the OCPD, Embakasi Division or OCS Kayole Police Station to enforce the said Orders issued on the 24th October, 2014. 21.Costs will be in the cause. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026CHRISTINE OCHIENG.JUDGE.In the presence of:Onindo for Onduso for PlaintiffMusungu for Onyango Oyieko for DefendantCourt Assistant: Vena