Githere (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of John Moffatt Githere) v Scion Healthcare Limited & 3 others (Land Case E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6414 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Plaintiff has met the threshold to warrant the issuance of an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendants from the suit property pending the outcome of this suit
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to institute the suit on behalf of the estate of her late husband
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction
The Plaintiff established a prima facie case, but the injunction was refused because of competing titles and the 1st Defendant's possession
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case. The Plaintiff demonstrated a Grant and a provisional title over LR No. 209/11026. However, the 1st Defendant also holds a title and is in possession operating a hospital, which is charged to the 2nd Defendant. Granting an injunction would effectively evict the 1st Defendant and invalidate the Charge, so the court opted for maintenance of the status quo pending full hearing.
Whether the Plaintiff had locus standi to sue on behalf of the estate
The Plaintiff, as administrator named in the Amended Certificate for Confirmation of Grant, had locus standi
The 2nd Defendant argued the Plaintiff had not exhibited a grant of representation to sue for the estate. The court found that annexure 'NNG 2', the Amended Certificate for Confirmation of Grant in Kiambu Succession Cause No. 405 of 1993, confirmed Nancy Njoki Githere as administrator of the estate of John Mofiat Githere, and rejected the objection.
Legal principles established
#- Where two competing titles exist over suit property and the defendant is in possession, an interlocutory injunction would amount to an eviction; the appropriate course is maintenance of the status quo and expeditious hearing
- An administrator named in an Amended Certificate for Confirmation of Grant has locus standi to institute a suit concerning estate property
Court orders
#- 1.Obtaining Status Quo be maintained where no party should interfere with the person in possession of the suit property
- 2.There should be no further developments on the suit property nor dealings on the two titles
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
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 over land disputes; interlocutory application under the court's inherent powers
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from trespassing/operating a business on LR No. 209/11026 and restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from alienating, selling or transferring the property
There are two competing titles and the 1st Defendant is in possession operating a hospital; an injunction at this stage would amount to an eviction
Costs
Each party to bear their 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.
Obtaining Status Quo be maintained where no party should interfere with the person in possession of the suit property. Further, there should be no further developments on the suit property nor dealings on the two titles.
Looking at the documents presented by both the Plaintifi and 1st Defendant, it seems there are two competing titles over the suit property.
I wish to rely on the principles espoused in the case of Giella v Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358 as well as the description of a prima facie case as stated in the case of Mrao Ltd v First American Bank Limited (2003) eKLR.
Each party to bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Defendants are not named in the judgment text; only their numerical roles (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Defendant) appear, though officers of the 1st and 2nd Defendants are named
Inconsistent status in coram: counsel Nyagaka appears 'for 1st Respondent' although the judgment is a first-instance suit with defendants, not respondents
Gazette notice date inconsistency in the Plaintiff's averments: provisional certificate gazetted 11th October 2019 but application for replacement states title 'had been gazetted on 11th February 2022'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Githere (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of John Moffatt Githere) v Scion Healthcare Limited & 3 others (Land Case E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6414 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case No. E007 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6414/eng@2025-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.