[2025] KEELC 4696 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 4696 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case by demonstrating lawful ownership and possession of the suit property, and that the defendant had encroached and erected illegal structures thereon. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the defendant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 4696 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: James Otieo Oketch; Defendant: Sammy Kasui
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
25 June 2025
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E038 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Application for temporary injunction granted; status quo to be maintained pending hearing and determination of the suit.
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Trespass, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
english
Land and Property Civil Procedure Temporary Injunctions Land Ownership Disputes Trespass Balance of Convenience

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Otieo Oketch

Plaintiff

Sammy Kasui

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case by demonstrating lawful ownership and possession of the suit property, and that the defendant had encroached and erected illegal structures thereon. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the defendant continued with the construction, as damages would not be an adequate remedy for the violation of proprietary rights. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as the risk of injustice was lower in granting the injunction and maintaining the status quo than in refusing it. The court therefore granted the order for maintenance of status quo pending the hearing and determination...

Court Disposition

Application for temporary injunction granted; status quo to be maintained pending hearing and determination of the suit.

Orders

  • Status quo to be maintained pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  • Costs to be in the cause.