Simonash Investment Ltd v Kenya National Highway Authority & 2 others (Constitutional Petition 15 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 3866 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu refused to pause an interim order protecting disputed land, confirming it never blocked the highway project.
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 ex parte interim order of status quo/temporary injunction issued on 28/4/2025 should be stayed pending hearing of the application and the substantive contempt application
- 2.Whether the 1st Respondent was given adequate notice of the mention of 28/4/2025
Key legal issues
#Whether to stay the ex parte interim injunction issued on short notice
Stay refused; the interim order was properly granted on prima facie material and the 1st Respondent remains free to contest the substantive application at the hearing.
The court noted the substantive contempt application had not been heard and would determine whether the Respondents breached the judgment. Photographs showed construction on the suit land, justifying the interim status quo order. The order was limited to the suit land and did not affect the highway project. The court found no basis for a stay and dismissed the application.
Legal principles established
#- An ex parte interim status quo order preserving the suit property may properly issue pending hearing of a contempt application where there is prima facie evidence of ongoing construction on the suit land.
- An interim status quo order limited to the suit land does not restrain construction of a public highway through the land.
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Respondent's application dated 2nd May 2025 seeking stay of execution/enforcement of the ex parte interim order is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- 3.Parties to comply with the directions given on 28/4/2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court over its own interlocutory orders; underlying judgment under appeal to the Court of Appeal
Relief refused
#Stay of execution and/or enforcement of the ex parte order of temporary injunction issued on 28/4/2025
The court found no reason to stay the order; the interim order only maintained status quo on the suit land and did not stop the highway construction
Costs
No order as to 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.
The 1st Respondent’s application dated 2nd May 2025 is therefore hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Prima facie there was need to stop the works pending hearing of the application.
The order did not stop the construction of Kisumu-kakamega-Webuye- Kitale Highway.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number and full party names are not stated in the ruling, which refers only to 'Petitioner' and '1st Respondent'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Simonash Investment Ltd v Kenya National Highway Authority & 2 others (Constitutional Petition 15 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 3866 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in excerpt (Petition, Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3866/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.