Kenyagi v Kendi & another (Environment and Land Appeal 7 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3833 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed a temporary injunction stops land use but does not evict an owner before 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 or not on the material placed before the trial court, the court erred in granting the order of temporary injunction
Key legal issues
#Whether the temporary injunction granted by the trial court amounted to a substantive eviction order at the interlocutory stage
It did not. The injunction merely halted developments and trespass pending determination of the suit; no evidence showed the appellant had his home on the suit land.
The court examined Order 40 Rule 1 and held that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to stop damage, wastage or alienation of the subject land. The respondents had stated the injunction was to stop continued trespass. There was no evidence the appellant resided on the land; he lived in Marsabit. The order's effect was only to halt developments pending trial, not to evict him.
Whether the trial court erred in granting the temporary injunction on the material placed before it
The trial court did not err; the appeal was dismissed and the interlocutory ruling affirmed.
Re-examining the material before the trial court (the supporting affidavit alleging forceful entry, destruction of property and construction, against the appellant's claim of occupation since 2017), the court found the injunction was properly granted. With judgment since delivered on 27 February 2025, the appeal was overtaken by events and parties were to comply with the decree.
Whether the appeal was overtaken by events following the delivery of judgment in the suit
The court noted the suit had been determined but nonetheless dealt with the appeal on its merits and dismissed it.
The respondents argued the appeal was moot because judgment in the suit was delivered on 27th February 2025 in their favour. The court did not strike out the appeal on this basis; instead it determined whether the trial court erred, found no error, dismissed the appeal and directed compliance with the decree.
Legal principles established
#- An order of temporary injunction is not equivalent to an eviction order; its purpose is to stop damage, wastage or alienation of the subject land.
- Where an interlocutory injunction has been properly granted and the suit has since been determined, the parties must comply with the decree.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal to the Respondents
- 3.Parties to comply with the decree in the suit, which was determined on 27th February 2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Vihiga Principal Magistrate's Court (PMC, MELC No. 037 of 2023)
- Vihiga PMC MELC No. 037 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over a subordinate court ruling in an environment and land matter
Relief refused
#Appellant's prayer that the appeal be allowed with costs
The court found no error in the trial court's grant of the temporary injunction
Costs
Costs to the Respondents
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.
An order of temporary injunction is not equivalent to an eviction order. In the wording of order 40 Rule 1 the purpose of an order of temporary injunction is to stop damage, wastage or alienation of the subject land.
After re-examining the material placed before the trial court in support and in opposition of the application for injunction I find that the trial court did not err in granting the order of temporary injunction.
For the foregoing reasons the court finds that the appeal has no merit. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs to the Respondents. Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#The respondents' names are never individually set out in the judgment; they are referred to only collectively as 'the Respondents', though the suit parcel and case number are identified.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenyagi v Kendi & another (Environment and Land Appeal 7 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3833 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Vihiga Environment and Land Court Appeal No. E008 of 2023 (arising from Vihiga PMC MELC No. 037 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3833/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.