Papiyio Investments Limited v Murero & 3 others; Murero & 2 others (Cross Petitioner); Papiyio Investment Limited & 2 others (Respondent) (Environment & Land Petition E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1445 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Narok court refused to let a deceased family's estate control hotel revenue on disputed land, ruling such estate matters belong in succession courts, not land petitions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the instant application and/or the orders sought by the 3rd Cross-Petitioners/Applicants are merited
Key legal issues
#Whether mandatory interlocutory orders (escrow deposit of proceeds) could issue
Not merited; no special circumstances demonstrated
The court noted there are two competing titles that can only be resolved at the main hearing. The Applicants never developed or ran the hotel and gave no evidence of having previously collected proceeds that had stopped. Mandatory interlocutory orders require special circumstances and a higher degree of assurance, per Halsbury and Kenya Breweries Ltd v Washington Okeyo.
Whether Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to a constitutional petition
It does not; the Mutunga Rules govern
The court agreed with the Petitioner that a claim brought in a Petition under Article 22 is governed by the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, not the Civil Procedure Rules. Further, Order 36 on summary judgment presupposes no defence filed, whereas the Cross-Petition is opposed.
Whether eviction could be ordered at the interlocutory stage
No; it is a final order and would breach the status quo order
Both parties claim ownership and the court had ordered maintenance of status quo on 29th October 2024. Granting eviction would in effect review or overturn that order without any application for review or setting aside, and would let the Applicants steal a match on the Petitioner.
Whether the court could preserve the estate under the Law of Succession Act
Such orders fall within the succession court's jurisdiction
The court found that depositing proceeds in escrow and taking inventory of tenants amounted to preserving the estate of the deceased, which only a succession court can order under sections 45 and 47 of the Law of Succession Act. The application was consequently found defective and untenable.
Legal principles established
#- A mandatory injunction ought not to be granted on an interlocutory application in the absence of special circumstances, and then only in clear cases
- The Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to constitutional petitions; the Mutunga Rules govern such proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 13th January 2025 is dismissed entirely
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Petitioner/1st Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 22 of the Constitution (constitutional petition under the Mutunga Rules)
Relief refused
#Order that all proceeds from the tourism facility on Narok/Cis-Mara/Lemek/190 be deposited into an escrow account
A mandatory order sought at interlocutory stage without demonstration of special circumstances
Leave to take inventory of tenants and inspect rent and service charge records
No basis laid; the Applicants did not develop or own the establishment on the land
Eviction of the Petitioner/1st Respondent from the suit property
A final order that cannot issue at interlocutory stage and would conflict with the status quo order of 29th October 2024
Costs
Costs of the application awarded to the Petitioner/1st Respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In a nutshell, the court finds and holds that the instant application dated 13th January 2025, is not merited and is fatally defective. Consequently, arrive at a conclusion that the said application cannot stand and is dismissed entirely with costs to the Petitioner/1st Respondent.
A mandatory injunction ought not to be granted on an interlocutory application in the absence of special circumstances
The claim by the 3rd Cross-Petitioners/Applicants is brought in a Petition and not a Civil suit, and therefore, the Mutunga Rules apply herein, and NOT the Civil Procedure rules.
There are two titles herein one being held by the Petitioner, and the other by the Cross-Petitioners. These are competing interests, and the issue of who is the lawful owner of the suit property, or who is holding a valid title can only be determined after hearing of the main Petition and the Cross Petition
Issues in the judgment
#The application date is inconsistently stated as 13th January 2025 and 13th July 2025
Petitioner's title deed number inconsistently stated as No.5178 and No.365487 is attributed to the 1st and 2nd Respondents' title
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Papiyio Investments Limited v Murero & 3 others; Murero & 2 others (Cross Petitioner); Papiyio Investment Limited & 2 others (Respondent) (Environment & Land Petition E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1445 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Petition dated 28th May 2024, with Cross-Petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1445/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.