Braeburn Limited v Mboya & 3 others (Sued through its Officials being the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents) (Environment and Land Case E532 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6999 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a school limited access to a residential lane but barred student drop-offs there, requiring use of its four existing gates.
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 applicant is entitled to the grant of orders of temporary injunction
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
It did not; the applicant has four alternative access gates along Gitanga Road, while respondents have only one access via Amboseli Lane
The applicant admitted four designated gates on Gitanga Road serve the school. The grievance was only against use of the lane for student drop-offs on a low-traffic residential road. The interested party confirmed the lane is a local access road for residents and that the applicant has multiple alternatives, whereas the respondents have only one access route.
Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
No; beyond inconvenience in student drop-offs and pick-ups, no irreparable harm was shown
The court found the applicant's complaints amounted to inconvenience and delay, which can be compensated by an award of costs. The school retains access through its four Gitanga Road gates, so no loss incapable of compensation was demonstrated.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It favours allowing both parties access, with the applicant's use limited to staff and service vehicles, and school traffic restricted to the Gitanga Road gates
Both the respondents and the applicant (as owner of the suit land) are entitled to access Amboseli Lane. The court therefore crafted interim orders balancing the applicant's residential access against the respondents' need for unimpeded use of their sole access road.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella v Cassman Brown principles govern temporary injunction applications: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable harm not adequately compensable by damages, and balance of convenience if in doubt
- A prima facie case is a genuine and arguable case in which a right has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's access to Amboseli Lane is limited to its staff and their service vehicles, subject to submitting a clear plan in collaboration with the respondents to manage traffic flow
- 2.Student drop-offs and drop-ins are restricted to the four gates along Gitanga Road pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Status quo is permitted in terms of the orders set out in the ruling
- 4.Costs shall abide the conclusion of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#A temporary injunction restraining the respondents from denying the applicant access to LR No 330/204 via Amboseli Lane as sought, including use of the lane for student drop-offs and pick-ups
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success and demonstrated no irreparable harm not compensable by costs; the balance of convenience favoured restricting school traffic to the Gitanga Road gates
Costs
Costs shall abide the conclusion of the suit.
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 totality of the evidence adduced is that the applicant has not established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
other than the inconvenience of long drop-ofis and pickups of students, the applicant has not shown any irreparable harm that cannot be compensated with costs.
the balance of convenience favours allowing both to use and access the lane.
I order that the drop-ofis and drop-ins be restricted to four gates along Gitanga Road pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Costs shall abide the conclusion of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The interested party's submissions refer to 'the appellants' premises' although this is a first-instance application and there are no appellants in the matter
The supplementary affidavit is described as dated 18/3/25 and states the applicant defied orders issued on '24/12/4', an apparently incomplete date reference
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Braeburn Limited v Mboya & 3 others (Sued through its Officials being the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents) (Environment and Land Case E532 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6999 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 18/12/2024 in the principal suit (ELC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6999/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.