Tuwano v Yawa; Mwereni Group Ranch (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E054 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3294 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused a landowner's injunction but froze the disputed Kwale land as-is, meaning neither side can evict the other or build until trial.
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 26th August, 2024 met the threshold for granting temporary injunctive orders
- 2.Whether the parties were entitled to the reliefs sought
- 3.Who will bear the cost of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the threshold for temporary injunctive orders
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success and irreparable injury, but the balance of convenience favoured preservation
Applying Giella as sequenced in Nguruman, the court found the applicant's claim of beneficial ownership of unsurveyed land within a group ranch title vehemently disputed, raising triable issues but no prima facie case. The court also found irreparable harm not demonstrated. However, the balance of convenience favoured granting orders preserving the property pending trial.
Whether the parties were entitled to the reliefs sought
The injunction reliefs were refused but status quo orders were granted for preservation of the suit property
The court held that issues such as whether the suit property was community land under the group ranch, the history of ownership, and who invaded whose portion required thorough interrogation at a full trial. Given both parties were in occupation, status quo orders pending hearing and determination of the suit were the most suitable remedy.
Who bears the costs of the application
Each party to bear their own costs
Although costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court in its discretion found it just and reasonable in the circumstances that each party bear their own costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- All three Giella conditions must be surmounted sequentially; existence of a prima facie case alone does not permit leap-frogging to an injunction
- A status quo order differs from an injunction; it is an ancillary preservation order that does not depend on proof of a right or prima facie case
- Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act but remain at the court's discretion
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 26th August, 2024 partly succeeds purely for purposes of preservation of the suit property
- 2.Status quo to be maintained to the extent that the parties in occupation shall remain in possession of the suit premises until the suit is heard and determined
- 3.There shall be neither evictions, continued construction nor any developments thereon
- 4.Mention on 23rd June, 2025 for pre-trial conference pursuant to Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; hearing of the suit on 28th July, 2025 through physical means
- 5.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 1 and 2, Order 45 Rule 1, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21
Relief refused
#Temporary and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing on, wasting, alienating, constructing on or otherwise interfering with the suit property
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm not compensable by damages under the Giella principles
Order directing the police county commander Kwale to enforce compliance
Flowing from the refusal of the injunction orders; the court instead issued status quo preservation orders
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs
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 There Be An Order For Status Quo To Be Maintained To The Extent That The Parties In Occupation Shall Remain In Possession Of The Suit Premises Until The Suit Is Heard And Determined.
That There Shall Be Neither Evictions, Continued Construction Nor Any Developments Thereon.
the Plaintifi/Applicant has not met the criteria for grant of orders of temporary injunction
That Each Party Shall Bear Its Own Costs.
By maintaining the status quo, the court strives to safeguard the situation so that the substratum of the subject matter of the dispute before it is not so eroded or radically changed
Issues in the judgment
#Contradiction: the court finds the applicant failed to meet the injunction criteria yet finds the balance of convenience tilts in the applicant's favour and grants preservation orders
The judgment signature block reads 'HON. MR. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI' while the heading references only the Applicant and Defendant, though the body references an Interested Party (the group ranch) not joined in the application prayer
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tuwano v Yawa; Mwereni Group Ranch (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E054 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3294 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Msambweni MCELC — Notice of Motion dated 26th August 2024 (suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3294/eng@2025-04-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.