[2025] KEELC 3131 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The photographic evidence annexed to the supporting affidavit did not demonstrate any ongoing construction or wastage on the suit property by the respondent. There was no evidence presented to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 3131 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Esther Nyambura Wanyoike; Plaintiff: Dorcas Njeri Maina; Defendant: Faith Nyambura Gatete
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E007 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- A Ombwayo
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Harm, Balance of Convenience
- 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
Esther Nyambura Wanyoike
Plaintiff
Dorcas Njeri Maina
Plaintiff
Faith Nyambura Gatete
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from construction on the suit property.
- 2 Whether there is evidence of ongoing construction or wastage on the suit property by the respondent.
- 3 Whether the applicants will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The photographic evidence annexed to the supporting affidavit did not demonstrate any ongoing construction or wastage on the suit property by the respondent. There was no evidence presented to show that the applicants would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted, nor was it shown that damages would be inadequate compensation should the applicants succeed at trial. The balance of convenience did not favor the applicants, as they failed to demonstrate any inconvenience or harm that could not be remedied by damages. Consequently, the application for a...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for a temporary injunction is dismissed.
- The applicants shall bear the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Wanyoike & another (Suing as legal representatives of Estate of Paul Gatete) v Gatete (Sued as the administrator of the Estate of Ruth Wanjiku Gatete) (Environment & Land Case E007 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3131 (KLR) (4 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3131 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Environment & Land Case E007 of 2022
A Ombwayo, J
April 4, 2025
Between
Esther Nyambura wanyoike
1st Plaintiff
Dorcas Njeri Maina
2nd Plaintiff
Suing as legal representatives of Estate of Paul Gatete
and
faith Nyambura Gatete
Defendant
Sued as the administrator of the Estate of Ruth Wanjiku Gatete
Ruling
1. This matter is scheduled for further hearing of the main suit on 29th May 2025. The plaintiff has come to the court under certificate of urgency seeking orders that pending hearing and determination of this suit, the Honorable court he pleased to issue a temporary injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from further construction of any structure or dropping new building materials on land parcel No.Nakuru Municipality Block 10/43. The applicant states that the respondents have embarked on constructing on the suit property despite the pendency of this matter before this court. The applicants have annexed photos allegedly showing that the respondent have embarked on construction on the property. The respondents have denied the allegation of construction on the suit property.
2. I have looked at the photographic evidence annexed by the applicants in the supporting affidavit and do not see any evidence of construction being done in the suit premises by the respondents. I do not see any evidence of wastage of the property by the respondents. I do find that the applicants have not established a prima facie case for grant of an interlocutory injunction. Moreover, there is no evidence that the applicant will suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted. Furthermore, the applicants have not demonstrated that they cannot be compensated in damages if they succeed in their case. The balance of convenience tilts towards dismissing the application for injunction as the applicants have not demonstrated that if the orders sought are not granted the applicant will suffer any inconvenience. Application is not merited and is dismissed with costs.
SIGNED BY: HON. JUSTICE ANTONY O. OMBWAYONAKURU ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURTENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURTDATE: 2025-04-04