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
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
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
Endarasha Farmers Cooperative Society Ltd v Wananchi DT Sacco Society Ltd & 2 others (Tribunal Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KECOPT 316 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Tribunal held that the Applicant had shown an arguable prima facie case through evidence of the loan dispute, communications, partial payments, and the intended sale process. It further held that the motor vehicle was integral to the Applicant’s milk collection business and that its loss would not be adequately cured by damages. On balance, preserving the vehicle pending hearing was appropriate. The application therefore satisfied the injunction threshold.
Source excerpt
Murimi & 2 others v Chacha (Sued/suing as administrator of the Estate of Chacha Mwita Murimi) & 3 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 16 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 5257 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling)
The respondents' preliminary objection failed because it depended on disputed facts rather than a pure point of law, and the applicants' affidavit evidence was uncontroverted by a replying affidavit and reinforced by the Area Chief's testimony. On the merits, the applicants established a prima facie case over the suit land, showed that burial there would cause irreparable harm by permanently altering the land, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo; the interim injunction was therefore confirmed, with police assistance maintained for enforcement.
Source excerpt
Karani & another v Njogu & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E064 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5210 (KLR) (4 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case because their account of acquisition of the suit property was riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions, including impossible dates and a narrative that conflicted with the 2nd Defendant’s title chain. They also failed to show irreparable harm because their own pleading sought monetary compensation in the alternative, demonstrating that any loss could be compensated in damages. Given the unexplained 19-year delay and the failure to satisfy the injunction threshold, the court declined to exercise its equitable discretion and…
Source excerpt
Magoha & another v Ringsview Apartments Ltd & 2 others (Land Case E018 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5149 (KLR) (4 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicants produced an agreement for sale and an arbitral award adopted as a court order confirming their claimed rights over the apartments, which established a prima facie case. Loss of ownership of the properties would amount to irreparable harm, and preservation of the suit properties was necessary in the interests of justice. The court therefore restrained any dealings with apartments C2 and B4 and ordered inhibition pending final determination of the suit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
