https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3266
The court found that the lease agreement established that the applicant had a protectable interest in the suit premises and, there being no response from the defendants, the application met the threshold for interlocutory injunctive relief; the injunction was therefore granted, but limited to one year.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 3266 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff/applicant: Vitalac International Ltd; 1st Defendant/respondent: Karson Motor Engineering Ltd; 2nd Defendant/respondent: James Wangombe Karani; 3rd Defendant/respondent: Florence Wanjiru Ngotho; 4th Defendant/respondent: James Wangombe Karani; 5th Defendant/respondent: Njimi Chell
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case E017 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Court Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Ruling on Notice of Motion Filed Contemporaneously With the Suit
- Outcome
- Application allowed in terms of prayer 3
- Judges
- ["LN Mbugua"]
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunction, Protectable Interest Under Lease, Trespass, Eviction Restraint, Leasehold Occupation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Vitalac International Ltd
Plaintiff/applicant
Karson Motor Engineering Ltd
1st Defendant/respondent
James Wangombe Karani
2nd Defendant/respondent
Florence Wanjiru Ngotho
3rd Defendant/respondent
James Wangombe Karani
4th Defendant/respondent
Njimi Chell
5th Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Ruling on Notice of Motion Filed Contemporaneously With the Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant established a protectable interest in the suit premises.
- 2 Whether the threshold for an interlocutory injunction was met.
- 3 What order should be made on the duration and costs of the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the lease agreement established that the applicant had a protectable interest in the suit premises and, there being no response from the defendants, the application met the threshold for interlocutory injunctive relief; the injunction was therefore granted, but limited to one year.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in terms of prayer 3
Orders
- The defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s occupation of L.R. 658/317, evicting it, or trespassing on the land.
- The injunctive orders shall remain in force for one year only.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYAHURURU** **ELC CASE NO. E017 OF 2025** **VITALAC INTERNATIONAL** **LTD…………………………………………..…PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **KARSON MOTOR ENGENEERING** **LTD…………………………………..1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **JAMES WANGOMBE KARANI…2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **FLORENCE WANJIRU NGOTHO……3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **JAMES WANGOMBE KARANI………4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **NJIMI CHELL……………………………5TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. Before me is a notice of motion application dated 22.10.2025 filed contemporaneously with the suit. The plaintiff seeks orders of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s occupation of parcel L.R. 658/317, evicting it, or trespassing on the said land. The application is premised on grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of Issak Ibrahim Issak, the manager of the plaintiff. 2. The applicant avers that it leased the suit premises and parcel 318 from the 1st defendant for a period of 15 years from 18.7.2025, of which the applicant paid two years rent and also took possession. However, on 19.10.2025, the 3rd and 4th defendants as agents of the 1st - 3rd defendants descended on the suit premises caused mayhem and disturbances with a view of evicting the plaintiff. That as the lawful beneficial owner of the suit premises, the applicant deserves the orders sought. 3. The application was served but no responses have been filed. A perusal of the lease agreement dated 18.7.2025 indicates that indeed the applicant leased the suit premises for a period of 15 years as from 18.7.2025. It follows that the applicant has a protectable interest in the suit premises. Thus in terms of the holding in **Giella Vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358. Kenya National Union of Nurses v County Government of Mombasa & 2 others [2015] eKLR,** I find that the application dated 22.10.2025 is merited, the same is allowed in terms of prayer no.3, but the injunctive orders shall remain in force for a period of ONE year only. The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAHURURU THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.** **LUCY N. MBUGUA** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** **Mutisya h/b for Ogola – Plaintiff** **N/A for respondent** **Nancy Mwangi – Court assistant**