https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5199

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYERI** **ELC CASE NO.E003 OF 2026** **ESTHER NJERI MAINA…………………………PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **(Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Grace Ruguru Thumbi – Deceased)** **VERSUS** **JANE WANGECHI KARIUKI……..…1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT GEORGE MAINA KARIUKI**………….**2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The Plaintiff/Applicant’s Notice of Motion, dated January 22, 2026, requests, among other relief, an order of inhibition on any dealings with Land Parcel No. Mweiga/Block 2/Ikumari/612 pending the hearing and determination of this suit. 2. The Application is substantiated by the Supporting Affidavit dated January 22, 2026, and the Supplementary Affidavit dated April 1, 2026, both affirmed by the Plaintiff. 3. The Defendants/Respondents opposed the Application by filing a joint Replying Affidavit dated March 9, 2026. 4. The Parties filed written submissions at the directions of this Court. 5. Arising from the materials and submissions placed before me, the sole issue for determination is whether the Plaintiff/Applicant has met the legal threshold for the grant of an order of inhibition pending the hearing and determination of the suit. 6. The Applicants contend that the threshold for granting the orders sought has been met. The Application is premised on: Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012, which empowers this Court to issue an order of inhibition, inhibiting, for a particular time, or until the occurrence of a particular event, or generally until further orders, the registration of any dealing with any land, lease, or charge; Section 80 of the Land Registration Act, 2012, on the rectification of the land register; and Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules on the preservation of property in dispute. 7. The purpose of an inhibition order is to preserve the suit property and maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the dispute. See Mrao Limited v First American Bank of Kenya and 2 others, (2003) KLR 125. The Court of Appeal defined a prima facie case as: *"A case 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."* 8. Further, in the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, in Civil Appeal 77 of 2012, **Nguruman Limited v Nielsen & 2 others [2014] KECA 606 (KLR**), the Court of Appeal emphasized that preliminary remedies are intended to safeguard the subject matter of litigation so that the parties' rights are not defeated before trial. 9. Similarly, in the case of **Joseph Siro Mosioma v Housing Finance Company of Kenya & 3 others [2008] KEHC 3673 (KLR),** the Court established that the objective of an injunction is to safeguard the subject property while awaiting the resolution of conflicting proprietary interests. 10. Conversely, the Respondents assert that the current proceedings are precluded by the doctrine of res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. 6. The controversy over ownership and interests in Land Parcel No. Mweiga/Block 2/Ikumari/612 was previously litigated in Nyeri HCCC No. 31 of 2006, involving the estate of the late Grace Ruguru Thumbi, whom the Applicant now represents. 11. The issues in this matter directly originate from the same dispute that was substantially and conclusively adjudicated in the prior suit. The law prohibits parties from repeatedly reopening disputes solely due to dissatisfaction with previous rulings. Litigation must ultimately conclude. See the Supreme Court in **Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 Others [2017] eKLR**. 12. An examination of **ELC Case No. 177 of 2017**, previously **Nyeri HCC No. 31 of 2006**, reveals that the present parties or their predecessors have been actively involved in litigation concerning the same suit property. The most recent decision, issued by Waithaka J. on July 3, 2018, overturned an ex parte judgment that had been entered against the Applicants in that matter. 13. It will seem that no action was taken by the parties to prosecute that matter; instead, a new matter has been filed. 14. To me, the current suit is *sub judice* **ELC Case No. 177 of 2017**, previously **Nyeri HCC No. 31 of 2006.** 15. What needs to happen is for the parties to harmonize the two files, either by consolidating them or by keeping the current one pending the hearing of the former one. 16. Ultimately, the application dated January 22, 2026, shall not be granted and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. **Dated, signed, and delivered electronically in Nyeri on this 22nd day of July, 2026.** **E. K. MAKORI** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** **Ms. Mbura for the Plaintiff/Applicants** **Denis: Court Assistant** **In the absence of:** **The Defendants/Respondents**