Okwaro (Suing as the Registered Proprietor and Manager of Boston High School and Boston Primary School) v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company Limited (Environment & Land Case E092 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4314 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Nairobi's water company must leave licensed boreholes serving two schools alone for one year, because cutting off water harms beyond what money can fix.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an interlocutory injunction should issue pending the outcome of the suit, restraining the Respondent including its agents from disconnecting, interfering with, vandalizing, or otherwise tampering with the boreholes situated within the suit lands
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - the Plaintiff was licensed by WRA to drill the boreholes and the boreholes supplied water to schools on the suit lands
The court applied Giella vs Cassman Brown and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case. The undisputed evidence was that WRA granted authorization to drill and installed meters on the boreholes. The Respondent did not dispute the authorization but only its conditions, and no complaint from WRA or WASREB against the boreholes was shown. The Respondent itself interfered with the boreholes, which was the fulcrum of the dispute, establishing a prima facie case.
Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages
Yes - damages are inadequate where water supply to schools is disrupted
Relying on Azalea Holdings and Salford Investment, the court associated itself with the proposition that water is life and its loss cannot be quantified in monetary terms. The boreholes were the sole source of water for Boston High School and Boston Primary School, so interference with them caused irreparable harm beyond monetary compensation.
Whether failure to join WASREB and WRA defeated the application
No - non-joinder did not bar the injunction
The Respondent argued the regulators should have been enjoined. The court noted there was no indication that WRA or WASREB had raised complaints against the Applicant regarding the boreholes; it was the Respondent that interfered with the boreholes, making it the proper party to restrain.
Whether allegations that the Applicant supplied water commercially without a WASREB licence defeated the claim
No - the interlocutory injunction issued notwithstanding those allegations, which remain for trial
The Respondent contended the Applicant supplied water to neighbours without a WASREB licence and used a biodigester to avoid sewer levies. The court did not resolve these disputes at the interlocutory stage, resting on the undisputed WRA authorization and the school use of the boreholes, while limiting the injunction to one year pending hearing of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- Where the disconnection of a water source is threatened or has occurred, damages are inadequate because water is equated to life
- A water utility must follow proper legal process, including issuing proper notice, before interfering with a lawfully licensed borehole; arbitrary interference supports an interlocutory injunction
Court orders
#- 1.That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, a temporary injunction do issue for one year, restraining the Respondent, its agents, servants, employees, or any person acting under its authority from disconnecting, interfering with, vandalizing, or otherwise tampering with the boreholes situated on the Applicant’s properties, namely LR No. 13XX6/045, LR No. 13XX6/1X9 and Block A 4X3 or imposing metering requirements on the same.
- 2.Costs of this application will be in the cause.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (not expressly cited in the extract; suit concerns land and boreholes on LR No. 13XX6/045, LR No. 13XX6/1X9 and Block A 4X3)
Relief refused
#Prayers 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice of Motion (marked 'Spent')
They were marked spent and required no ruling
Prayer 5 - declaration that the Respondent's actions were unconstitutional, ultra vires and in violation of Articles 40, 47 and 64 of the Constitution
The court found the application only partially merited and granted prayer No. 4 alone; no declaration was issued at the interlocutory stage
Injunction for the duration of the suit without limitation
The court limited the injunction to a period of one year
Costs
Costs of this application will be in the cause.
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 pending the hearing and determination of this suit, a temporary injunction do issue for one year, restraining the Respondent, its agents, servants, employees, or any person acting under its authority from disconnecting, interfering with, vandalizing, or otherwise tampering with the boreholes situated on the Applicant’s properties, namely LR No. 13XX6/045, LR No. 13XX6/1X9 and Block A 4X3 or imposing metering requirements on the same.
Costs of this application will be in the cause.
In the event that the water source is disconnected, the repercussions will be more than monetary losses. I am persuaded that by the very nature of water being equated to life, damages would not be adequate.
The cumulative efiect and significate of lack of water in human life cannot be quantified to warrant compensation of its loss, this is synonymous with the saying that, ‘water is life’.
since the Applicant was legally licensed to drill boreholes by WRA that issued him with metres, and which boreholes were supplying water to the schools situated on the suit lands, he has indeed established a prima facie case
the Respondent should have adhered to the proper legal processes by issuing a proper notice, instead of arbitrarily interfering with the boreholes, which were supplying the two schools with water
Issues in the judgment
#Role inconsistency: the application is described as the 'Plaintiff's Notice of Motion' but the orders and body refer to the Applicant; the deponent describes himself as Manager of schools yet also claims to be 'the lawful proprietor'
Case number and neutral citation are not printed in the judgment extract provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okwaro (Suing as the Registered Proprietor and Manager of Boston High School and Boston Primary School) v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company Limited (Environment & Land Case E092 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4314 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4314/eng@2025-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.