Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment

Shah & another v Erick Mutuma Murithi t/a Squad Three Services & 2 others; Estate of Simon Njenga Ndaba & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E258 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5186 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 July 2025
COChristine Ochieng
708 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 18th June 2025 seeking an order that the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Parklands Police Station oversee the enforcement of court orders issued on 29th May 2025 and extended on 12th June 2025. Those orders, granted ex parte on an application dated 26th May 2025, temporarily injunction the Defendants, their directors, agents, employees and servants from trespassing on, interfering with, developing, wasting or dealing in any manner with Land Reference Number 209/178/20 pending hearing of the application. The Plaintiffs complained that individuals in 'Squad Three Security' uniforms, initially acting for the Defendants, removed their uniforms after the orders issued to conceal their identities, and that police at Parklands Station declined to act without a specific court order. The 1st Defendant opposed the motion in a replying affidavit, asserting that the persons photographed were hired goons in replica uniforms tarnishing the Defendants' reputation and that the Defendants had no interest in the suit land. The court framed a single issue: whether the OCS should oversee enforcement of the orders. Noting that the orders were meant to preserve land owned by the Plaintiffs and an Interested Party, that unknown intruders remained on the land, and that the Defendants, disclaiming any interest, could show no prejudice, the court found the application merited and directed the OCS Parklands Police Station to oversee enforcement. Costs were not addressed.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Parklands Police Station should oversee the enforcement of court orders issued on 29th May 2025 and 12th June 2025 respectively

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether police assistance should be ordered to enforce interim injunctive orders

Holding

The application was merited; the OCS Parklands Police Station was directed to oversee enforcement of the orders of 29th May 2025 and 12th June 2025.

Reasoning

The interim orders were granted ex parte to preserve the suit land, owned by the Plaintiffs and an Interested Party, pending determination of the application dated 26th May 2025. Photographs showed unknown intruders still on the land despite the orders. The Defendants disclaimed interest in the land and hence showed no prejudice from police enforcement. Preservation of the substratum of the suit favoured allowing the application.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who disclaims any interest in suit land cannot demonstrate prejudice arising from police enforcement of injunctive orders preserving that land.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Parklands Police Station be and is hereby directed to oversee the enforcement of court orders issued on 29th May 2025 and 12th June 2025 respectively

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

CO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction over land disputes (suit land Land Reference Number 209/178/20); no specific constitutional or statutory provision invoked in the judgment

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 Oficer Commanding Station (OCS) Parklands Police Station be and is hereby directed to oversee the enforcement of court orders issued on 29th May 2025 and 12th June 2025 respectively.
p. 3Final orders - police oversight of enforcement of injunction
I find that it would be pertinent if the substratum of the suit was indeed preserved.
p. 3Preservation of suit property as substratum of the suit
Since they have no interest in the suit land, in my view they have not demonstrated what prejudice they stand to sufier if the Police enforced the aforementioned Court orders.
p. 2Absence of prejudice where a party disclaims interest in the land

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Case number, parties' names and neutral citation are not stated anywhere in the judgment as provided.

minor

The extracted orders of 29th May 2025 refer to restraining the Defendants yet the body of the judgment indicates the Defendants were guarding land owned by the Plaintiffs and an Interested Party; the Interested Party is not joined or described in the extracts.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shah & another v Erick Mutuma Murithi t/a Squad Three Services & 2 others; Estate of Simon Njenga Ndaba & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E258 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5186 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5186/eng@2025-07-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.