https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4077
The court found it necessary to protect the subject matter and avoid any misapprehension of its earlier orders, so it directed both parties to maintain status quo, ordered the plaintiff to respond within seven days, allowed the applicants a supplementary affidavit if needed, and set the application for determination...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 4077 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Yussuf Shariff Issack; 1st Defendant / Applicant: Al-Fardoos Flats Management Limited; 2nd Defendant / Applicant: Ubdi Yahye Haji
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case E550 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Court Civil Application / Ruling on Defendants' Application for Review/directions and Priority Hearing
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed by way of directions; interim orders maintained and hearing timetable set.
- Judges
- ["TW Murigi"]
- Legal Topics
- Review of Directions, Inter Partes Hearing, Status Quo Orders, Interim Injunctive Relief, Non Attendance by Counsel, Written Submissions
- 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
Yussuf Shariff Issack
Plaintiff
Al-Fardoos Flats Management Limited
1st Defendant / Applicant
Ubdi Yahye Haji
2nd Defendant / Applicant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Civil Application / Ruling on Defendants' Application for Review/directions and Priority Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review the directions issued on 26 May 2026 after defendants' counsel failed to attend.
- 2 Whether the defendants' application dated 21 May 2026 should be fixed for priority hearing.
- 3 Whether the interim injunctive orders should be preserved without being construed as eviction orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found it necessary to protect the subject matter and avoid any misapprehension of its earlier orders, so it directed both parties to maintain status quo, ordered the plaintiff to respond within seven days, allowed the applicants a supplementary affidavit if needed, and set the application for determination by written submissions.
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed by way of directions; interim orders maintained and hearing timetable set.
Orders
- Both parties shall maintain the status quo and preserve the subject matter pending hearing and determination of the application.
- The plaintiff shall file and serve a response to the application dated 21 May 2026 within seven days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**.** **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIORBI** **ELC CASE NO. E550 OF 2025** **YUSSUF SHARIFF ISSACK ………………………………………….PLAINTIFF** **=VERSUS=** **AL-FARDOOS FLATS MANAGEMENT LIMITED ………. 1ST DEFENDANT** **UBDI YAHYE HAJI …………………………………………2ND DEFENDANT** **RULING** 1. Before this Court is the Defendant’s application dated 26th May 2026, brought under Sections 1A, 1B, and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in which the Defendants seek a review of the directions issued on 26th May 2026 and an order that the application dated 21st May 2026 be set down for hearing as a matter of priority. 2. The application is based on the grounds appearing on its face together with the supporting affidavit of Justus Mutunga, advocate for the Defendants. The deponent averred that the Defendants' application dated 21st May 2026 was scheduled for inter partes hearing on 26th May 2026. He explained that he was unable to address the Court when the matter was called, as he was simultaneously engaged before five other courts on that date, and that his non-attendance was therefore entirely inadvertent. Counsel presented his diary and the cause lists of the respective courts. 3. Counsel contended that unless the application is heard on a priority basis, the Plaintiff will continue to misuse the injunctive orders to unlawfully interfere with Sahara Mohamed Osoble's possession and occupation of the suit property. 4. On 26th May 2026, following the non-attendance of the Counsel for the Defendants, this Court extended the interim injunctive orders issued on 16th December 2025. 5. The Defendants are apprehensive that they will be evicted by the Plaintiffs. While the Court appreciates that the Plaintiff is yet to file its response to the application, the Court did not intend for its orders to be construed as eviction orders. Having considered the application and the material placed before this Court, I hereby direct that as follows **DIRECTIONS** * + 1. ***In the interest of justice, both parties shall maintain the status quo of the subject matter, that is, the preservation of the subject matter pending the hearing and determination of the application.*** 2. ***The Plaintiff shall file and serve a response to the application dated 21st May 2026 within seven (7) days from the date of these directions.*** 3. ***The Applicants will have corresponding leave to file and serve a supplementary affidavit within 7 days of service by the Respondent if need be.*** 4. ***The application will be canvassed by way of written submission.*** 5. ***Parties are directed to file their submissions together with their responses.*** 6. ***Ruling on 26th of June 2026.*** For avoidance of doubt, the interim orders shall remain in force The Plaintiff shall not evict the Defendant. **RULING SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.** **…………………………………….** **HON. T. MURIGI** **JUDGE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF**: Mutunga for the Defendants/Applicants Malevu for the Plaintiff/Applicant Ahmed – Court assistant