Jojomera & another v Kauli (Land Case E013 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3257 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kwale land owner's injunction bid failed because photos and police records didn't actually prove the property destruction he alleged.
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 Notice of Motion application dated 13th May, 2024 by the Defendant/Applicant has met the threshold for granting of temporary injunctive orders sought
- 2.Whether the parties are entitled to the reliefs sought
- 3.Who bears the costs of the application?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Defendant established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction
No - the photographic evidence and OB numbers were insufficient to prove the alleged destruction by the Plaintiffs
The court examined the photographs and found they did not clearly depict burnt crops or destroyed beacons. The OB numbers only showed a report was made but not its content. Minutes referred to concerned a public participation meeting for a data centre, not consent to land sale. Allegations unsupported by sufficient evidence cannot found injunctive relief.
Whether the injunction conditions were satisfied sequentially
Failure of the prima facie case limb meant the remaining limbs need not be considered
Applying Nguruman and Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd v Afraha Education Society, the court held the conditions are separate, distinct and logical hurdles to be surmounted sequentially; once the prima facie case failed, irreparable injury and balance of convenience fell away.
Costs
Each party to bear own costs despite the outcome, in the interest of justice
Costs are discretionary; the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides costs follow the event. Although the Plaintiffs partly proved their case, the court in the interest of justice directed each party to bear its own costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella conditions for an interlocutory injunction are sequential hurdles; failure of one ends the inquiry
- Courts decide interlocutory applications on facts and evidence, not on the emotional state of litigants
- He who alleges must prove
Court orders
#- 1.That the Notice of Motion application dated 13th May 2024 partly succeeds on only one limb
- 2.That the status quo orders issued on 31st July 2023 for preserving the suit property remain in place pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 3.That there shall be a mention on 17th June, 2025 for a Pre-Trial Conference pursuant to Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and a hearing date on 22nd October, 2025 by virtual means
- 4.That each party shall bear its costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21; Order 22 Rule 22, Order 40 Rule 7 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiffs from interfering with, destroying beacons, burning buildings or farmlands on the suit property
The Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case; the photographs and OB numbers did not substantiate the alleged destruction
Order directing OCS Samburu police station to ensure compliance
Not granted as the application failed on the injunction limb
Costs
Each party shall bear its costs of the application herein
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.
That the Notice of Motion application dated 13th May 2024 partly succeeds on only one limb.
That the status quo orders issued by this Honourable Court on 31st July 2023 for purposes of preserving the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the main suit are still in place.
That each party shall bear its costs of the application herein.
The court is therefore not satisfied that the Applicant has established a prima facie case so as to warrant the granting of the orders of injunction.
The existence of a prima facie case does not permit “leap-frogging” by the applicant to injunction directly without crossing the other hurdles in between.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment alternates between referring to the Plaintiffs and the Defendant as 'Applicants', including in the framing of issues
Contradictory statement on costs - the court states the Plaintiffs 'partly managed to proof their case' yet orders each party to bear own costs
Submissions recorded as filed by M/s Musyoki Advocate for the Defendant/Applicant, but the appearance list shows M/s Musyoki for the Plaintifi/Respondent
No case number given for the suit in the judgment text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jojomera & another v Kauli (Land Case E013 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 3257 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3257/eng@2025-04-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.