https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4846

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAJIADO** **ELC NO. E007 OF 2022** **KURIA NJOGU MBUGUA………..................................................PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **WILLIAM SANTAMO KURRARU………………………1ST DEFENDANT** **NTIONO NAGETO………………………………………...2ND DEFENDANT** **LILIAN WAITHERA MWAI……………………………….3RD DEFENDANT** **OLIVE LIMITED…………………………………………….4TH DEFENDANT** **LAND REGISTRAR KAJIADO NORTH (NGONG)….5TH DEFENDANT** **ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………….6TH DEFENDANT** **JANE WAMBUI GACHERU & 82 OTHERS……...………...DEFENDANTS** **RULING** 1. In the **Application dated 2nd February 2022** before court for determination, the Plaintiff seeks temporary injunctive orders against the Defendants/Respondents to restrain them from interfering with parcel Kajiado/Ntashart/1704 now subdivided to parcels Kajiado/Ntashart/20381 to 20488 pending the determination of this suit. 2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Plaintiff is the registered owner of parcel Kajiado/Ntashart/1704 having acquired it from the original owner and obtained registration on 30th October 1990. He took possession of the land and enjoyed uninterrupted occupation. A search conducted on 4th May 2015 confirmed that the title was registered in his name. 3. In 2017, while conducting another search, he learnt that the 1st Respondent had obtained title over the same property, although the land records still reflected him as the sole proprietor. This anomaly was reported to the Land Registrar- the 5th Defendant/ Respondent herein, who summoned them to a meeting on 26th July 2017. On 28th July 2017, the Land Registrar directed the 1st Respondent to surrender the said title, which he failed to. A Gazette Notice was then issued on 8th September 2017 notifying the public that the said title had been fraudulently acquired. 4. Despite this, the said title was subdivided into parcels Kajiado/Ntashart/8331 and 8332 registered in favour of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent. Sometime on 7th September 2018, the titles were transferred to the 3rd Defendant/Respondent, who later transferred them to the 1st Defendant on 26th September 2019. On 30th September 2019, the 1st Defendant transferred them to the 4th Defendant. On 28th October 2020, titles 8331 and 8332 were amalgamated and a new title Kajiado/Ntashart/202307 issued. This parcel was then closed on subdivision on 1st April 2021 with the new parcels titled as Kajiado/Ntashart/20381- 20488. 5. The Plaintiff avers that a map acquired from the Lands registry shows that property 1704 is still registered in his name although his right to own the said property was being interfered with and the reliefs sought were necessary to prevent further alienation of the land. 6. The 1st Defendant/ Respondent opposes the application insisting that parcel Kajiado/Ntashart/1704 which belongs to him, was a subdivision of parcel Kajiado/Ntashart/294 belonging to his father and at no time was it ever transferred or registered in the Plaintiff’s favour. He affirms that he transferred the said property to the 4th defendant and that in 2017 his father who was still alive was not summoned to explain the subdivisions. He further insists that the cancellation process of the said title was illegal and irregular since the Plaintiff did not prove how he acquired the suit property. He thus seeks dismissal of the application with costs. 7. The **1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants/ Respondents** further filed **grounds of opposition dated 9th March 2026** arguing that there had been unreasonable delay in prosecuting the application since 2022 and it should thus be dismissed. 8. The applications were to be canvassed by way of written submissions, but at the time of writing the Ruling, only counsel for the Plaintiff had filed submissions in support of the Application. 9. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case because she had ownership documents for parcel Kajiado/Ntashart/1704 and the map obtained from the Lands registry also showed that the said property was still intact. Thus any subdivisions had been fraudulently undertaken, adding that this was also confirmed by the Land Registrar in the meeting on 26th July 2017 where the 1st defendant was asked to surrender the title deed in his possession. Foolowing this meeting cancellation of the title was gazetted. As such, if the reliefs sought were not issued, the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. 10. Having considered the applications, I find that the sole issue for determination is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the injunctive reliefs sought. 11. The Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 2nd February 2022, seeking temporary injunctive orders to restrain the Defendants from interfering with land parcel Kajiado/Ntashart/1704 (now subdivided into parcels Kajiado/Ntashart/20381–20488) is opposed by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants on grounds that there has been inordinate delay in prosecuting the application. 12. While the Plaintiff/Applicant did not provide reasons as to why the application lay in Court un-prosecuted from 2022, the Court perused the record as summed herein. 13. Upon filing, the application was not certified as urgent, and the Court directed that it be served upon all the parties. Thereafter, the Plaintiff obtained leave to effect substituted service. Significantly, on 4th October 2022, the Court issued orders directing that the prevailing status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit. Subsequently, counsel for the 1st and 4th Defendants informed the Court of the existence of related matters, namely **ELC E060 of 2022** and **ELC No. 3 of 2021**, prompting directions on the question of consolidation. When the matter next came up, counsel confirmed that responses had been filed, whereupon the Court issued directions towards pre-trial compliance. The record further demonstrates that the suit continued to progress and was eventually fixed for hearing. It was only on 27th January 2026 that the Plaintiff sought to revive the present application by filing a request for its hearing and determination. 14. The foregoing chronology demonstrates that, on 4th October 2022, Gicheru J. issued an order directing the maintenance of the status quo, expressly prohibiting any alienation of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit. That order has neither been varied nor discharged. 15. The subsisting status quo order achieves the very objective that an interlocutory injunction is intended to secure, being, the preservation of the suit property pending the final determination of the dispute. The property remains protected against alienation, disposal, wastage or any other act capable of defeating the subject matter of the litigation. 16. As such, the Court finds that no useful purpose would be served by embarking upon the determination of the Plaintiff’s application and pronouncing itself on reliefs that are already effectively secured by existing orders. 17. I therefore find that this application had already been determined on 4th October 2022 and this court has no jurisdiction to revisit it again. The orders issued on 4th October 2022 are to remain in place. The parties are instructed to expeditiously set the main suit down for hearing. **Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Kajiado this 27th day of July 2026.** **JUDY OMANGE** **JUDGE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:** Mr Arasa for the Applicant. Mr Mulula for the Respondent. Peter – Court Assistant.