Kenya Case Law

Kashaha v Registrar of Titles

Kashaha v Registrar of Titles (Environment and Land Case 166 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 4780 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Case 166 of 2015

Judge

["A Ombwayo"]

The court found the applicant had demonstrated that the respondents were disposing of the land and were likely to avoid settling the decree or taxed costs. On that basis, the court granted attachment before judgment over the listed parcels and awarded the costs of the application to the applicant.

Source excerpt

• Attachment before judgment
• Security for costs / security for appearance
• Prohibitory order
• Charge over land
• Execution for taxed costs
• Advocate-client bill of costs

Philip Muoka & Co. Advocates v Civicon Limited

Philip Muoka & Co. Advocates v Civicon Limited (Miscellaneous Application E1253 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 6900 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (7 May 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Application E1253 of 2020

Judge

["F Gikonyo"]

The court held that the decree holder proved an unsatisfied decree, proved ownership of the subject property by the judgment debtor, and faced an uncontroverted risk that the property could be alienated to defeat execution. In the absence of any response from the judgment debtor, the court found the conditions for a prohibitory order and consequent execution against the immovable property satisfied.

Source excerpt

• Prohibitory order
• Inhibition
• Execution against immovable property
• Attachment and sale by public auction
• Decretal sum recovery

Philip Muoka & Co Advocates v Civicon Limited

Philip Muoka & Co Advocates v Civicon Limited (Miscellaneous Application E1257 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 6835 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (7 May 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Application E1257 of 2020

Judge

["F Gikonyo"]

The decree holder proved a valid unsatisfied decree, demonstrated that the respondent owned the subject property, and showed an unchallenged risk that the property could be alienated to defeat execution. With no response from the judgment debtor, the court found the statutory and practical conditions for preserving and attaching the immovable property satisfied and granted the orders sought, subject to payment within 30 days failing which the property would be sold by auction.

Source excerpt

• Prohibitory order
• Inhibition
• Execution against immovable property
• Attachment and sale of land
• Unopposed application
• Decretal sum recovery

Philip Muoka & Co. Advocates v Civicon Limited

Philip Muoka & Co. Advocates v Civicon Limited (Miscellaneous Application E1256 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 6863 (KLR) (7 May 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Application E1256 of 2020

Judge

["F Gikonyo"]

The decree holder proved a valid unsatisfied decree, the respondent’s ownership of the subject property, and a real risk that the property could be alienated to frustrate execution. Because the application was uncontested, the court found the statutory and procedural requirements for a prohibitory order satisfied and granted execution-related relief.

Source excerpt

• Prohibitory order
• Attachment and sale of immovable property
• Inhibition of land dealings
• Post-judgment enforcement
• Uncontested application

Philip Muoka & Company Advocates v Civicon Limited

Philip Muoka & Company Advocates v Civicon Limited (Miscellaneous Application E1253 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 7023 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (7 May 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Application E1253 of 2020

Judge

["F Gikonyo"]

The decree holder proved an unpaid decree, proved that the respondent owns the subject property, and raised an unrebutted risk of alienation that could frustrate execution. Because the respondent filed no response despite service, the court accepted the applicant’s assertions and held that the conditions for a prohibitory order and execution against the property were satisfied.

Source excerpt

• Prohibitory order
• Inhibition
• Execution against immovable property
• Attachment and sale by public auction
• Decree enforcement
• Service and non-response

Philip Muoka & Company Advocates v Civicon Limited

Philip Muoka & Company Advocates v Civicon Limited (Miscellaneous Application E1254 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 7024 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (7 May 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Application E1254 of 2020

Judge

["F Gikonyo"]

The decree holder proved an unsatisfied decree, ownership of the identified immovable property by the judgment debtor, and a credible risk that the property could be alienated to defeat execution. The application was unopposed. On that basis, the court held that the conditions for a prohibitory order and consequential execution orders were met.

Source excerpt

• Prohibitory order
• Inhibition
• Attachment of immovable property
• Sale by public auction
• Execution of decree
• Valuation and inspection of property

Dhanjal Investments Ltd v Shabaha Investment Ltd

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Application E049 of 2025

Judge

["DK Musinga", "AK Murgor", "GW Ngenye-Macharia"]

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for injunction and stay, holding the applicants had not shown an arguable appeal or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory.

• Rule 5(2)(b) stay and injunction
• Arguable appeal test
• Nugatory aspect test
• Separate corporate personality
• Execution against company property
• Prohibitory order

Muema Kitulu & 8 others v Elizabeth Kamene Ndolo

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Case 241 of 2017

Judge

["EO Obaga"]

The court dismissed an execution application because the applicants did not prove that LR No. 1757/30 belonged to the judgment debtor.

• Adverse possession suit costs
• Attachment and sale of immovable property
• Prohibitory order
• Proof of ownership of judgment debtor's property
• Subdivision and excision of land for execution
• Execution-of-decrees

Cementers Limited v Mihrab Development Limited

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Case E173 of 2023

Judge

J Omange

The court dismissed a motion for a prohibitory injunction over land, holding the plaintiff’s unpaid contract claim could be met by damages and no decree-risk was shown.

• Interlocutory injunction
• Prohibitory order
• Order 40 civil procedure rules
• Construction contract dispute
• Preservation of suit property
• Balance of convenience