Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Environment and Land Court granted a temporary injunction to stop alleged unauthorised excavation and construction on an access road adjoining the Plaintiff’s land in Dagoretti/Mutuini.
Linturi v M'Ethingia (Civil Suit E005 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13122 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that it could not conclusively determine at the interlocutory stage whether the impugned political statements were manifestly defamatory or were political rhetoric requiring full trial interrogation, and therefore the applicant had not established a clear prima facie case; further, any proven reputational injury could be compensated by damages and the balance of convenience favored declining a blanket gag order that would improperly restrict political campaigning and expression.
Source excerpt
Kombelel & another v Kosgei (Environment and Land Case E086 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 506 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicants failed to establish a prima facie case because the evidence showed an unresolved boundary dispute and competing claims to adjacent parcels, with no land registrar report to confirm trespass. Having failed the first Giella limb, and with the alleged harm being compensable by damages, the application for injunction was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Mussukuya v Musoi & 3 others (Environment and Planning Civil Case E019 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5287 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case and irreparable harm from the respondent’s ongoing commercial activity in a residential setting, including noise, blocked access, wastewater discharge, and interference with quiet enjoyment; the balance of convenience also favoured interim restraint. However, no special circumstances were shown to justify a mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage or orders compelling the regulatory respondents, because those prayers would prematurely determine disputed facts before trial.
Source excerpt
Miano v Njombai & 3 others (Commercial Case E063 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12976 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (13 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicant established a prima facie case because the resignation and share transfer documents contained material inconsistencies, including conflicting resignation dates, identical signatures, incorrect address details, and unexplained email and phone changes that raised serious questions about authenticity and procedural regularity. The court accepted that irreparable harm and balance of convenience favored preserving the company’s assets and shareholding pending trial, but declined to wholly freeze the company bank account because that would amount to finally determining management righ…
Source excerpt
Nyaenya v Nyang’au (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5304 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court found that the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case because the respondent admitted closing the access road and the survey report showed the mapped access road existed but was blocked by permanent structures, leaving the applicant without practical access. The court held the harm from loss of access could not be adequately compensated by damages and that the balance of convenience favoured restoring access pending trial. Given the clear facts and the special circumstance of denied access to a home, the higher threshold for a mandatory interlocutory injunction was satisfied.
Source excerpt
Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs & 2 others (Judicial Review E280 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12682 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant did not establish a sufficient basis for an interim prohibition order. The suspension had already become effective and implementation had begun, the parties had effectively agreed at the 29 July 2026 meeting that the suspension would remain pending compliance, and the applicant failed to demonstrate the nature or extent of the alleged losses or irreparable prejudice. In those circumstances, the court refused temporary intervention and directed expeditious progress of the matter.
Source excerpt
Mohamed v Ali (Environment and Land Appeal E117 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5176 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the applicant established an arguable appeal because section 6(1) of Cap 301 allows the tribunal, for sufficient reason, to entertain a reference notwithstanding non-compliance, so the dismissal without considering whether the omission was excusable could amount to an error of law. Eviction would likely dispossess the applicant of her business, risk third-party occupation, and render the appeal nugatory. The balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo and preserving the substratum of the appeal.
Source excerpt
Horeria v Murigu & 3 others (Land Case E247 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5249 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court found that the Applicant satisfied the Giella test because earlier court proceedings had already recognized his possessory and equitable rights, the alleged destruction and threats were uncontroverted, and the Respondents had not shown prejudice outweighed the Applicant’s risk of irreparable harm. However, because similar injunctive orders had already been granted in ELC E215 of 2026 and the issues overlapped, the court declined to vary the existing position, ordered the parties to maintain the status quo, and directed consolidation of the matters with ELC E215 of 2026 as the lead f…
Source excerpt
Monacs LLC v Monacs Health Kenya Ltd (Commercial Miscellaneous Application E773 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12805 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant established a prima facie case based on the admitted joint venture arrangement, the admitted supply of equipment, and the partial payment already made, but the court declined any order that would remove or dismantle the hospital equipment because it is in daily clinical use and its removal would prejudice patients and the respondent’s operations. The court therefore granted only limited preservatory relief and financial disclosure, finding that the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo and avoiding disruption to patient care.
Source excerpt
Explore more
