Shah & another v Murithi t/a Squad Three Services & 2 others; Ndaba & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E258 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7184 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court froze all dealings with a disputed Nairobi plot because a security firm guarding it refused to name who hired it.
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 restraining the Defendants from interfering with the suit land pending the outcome of the suit
- 2.Whether an inhibition order should be registered against the suit land to inhibit any dealings pending the outcome of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction
The Plaintiffs demonstrated proprietary interest in the suit land through the Certificate of Title, Deed Plan, Assent, Deed of Gift, Indenture of Conveyance, Grant of Probate and correspondence, satisfying the Giella v Cassman Brown test
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the court found the Plaintiffs' documentary chain of title established an apparent right infringed by the Defendants' entry. The Defendants admitted providing security on the land but claimed an undisclosed principal, which the court found lacking in candour, reinforcing the Plaintiffs' case.
Whether an inhibition order should issue under Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act
The conditions in Japheth Kaimenyi M'ndatho v M'ndatho M'mbwiria were satisfied and an inhibition was granted
The court adopted the three conditions from M'ndatho: risk of disposal or alienation, that refusal would render the suit nugatory, and an arguable case. Given the prima facie case, the Defendants' interference with possession and their refusal to identify their principal, the court held an inhibition restricting all dealings would suffice pending the suit's outcome.
Whether the Defendants' reliance on data privacy laws justified non-disclosure of their principal
The court rejected this justification, finding the Defendants not candid and not acting in good faith
The Defendants claimed their client's identity was protected by data privacy laws and could only be revealed by court order. The court found this posture evasive: a firm that entered land, replaced a padlock and deployed guards while denying any interest in the land, yet refusing to identify who instructed it, could not be acting candidly. This weighed in favour of preservatory relief.
Legal principles established
#- A party who claims to act on the instruction of an unnamed principal but declines to disclose that principal's identity is not acting in good faith or candidly before the court
- Where a plaintiff holds documents of title, has been interfered with in possession, and the opposing party declines to disclose its principal, an inhibition restricting dealings on the suit land is warranted
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants, their directors, agents, employees, servants, clients or whomsoever from trespassing, interfering, dealing, developing, wasting and/or damaging or dealing in any manner whatsoever with Land Reference Number 209/178/20 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Order of inhibition inhibiting any dealings with Land Reference Number 209/178/20, whether by way of transfer, sale, lease, charge or otherwise, pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Costs to abide the outcome of the suit
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; inherent powers under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act invoked
Relief refused
#Order compelling the Defendants to disclose the identity of the principal who instructed their security personnel (prayer g)
Not among the orders granted in the disposition; the court allowed the application only in terms of the injunction, inhibition and costs
Costs of the application against the Defendants (prayer i)
The court ordered costs to abide the outcome of the suit rather than awarding them to the Plaintiffs
Costs
Costs to abide outcome of 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.
That pending the hearing and determination of suit, an Order of temporary injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the Defendants, its directors, agents, employees, servants, clients or whomsoever be restrained from trespassing, interfering, dealing, developing, wasting and or, damaging or dealing in any manner whatsoever with Land Reference Number 209/178/20.
That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, an order of inhibition be and is hereby issued inhibiting any dealings with Land Reference Number 209/178/20 either by way of transfer, sale, lease, charge or otherwise.
I find that the Plaintiffs' have indeed established a prima facie case to warrant the Orders of interlocutory injunction as sought.
I opine that the Defendants are not acting in good faith nor being candid, for failure to divulge the name of their principal insisting they do not want to breach Data Privacy Laws.
In an application for orders of inhibition, in my understanding, the applicant has to satisfy the following conditions
Costs to abide outcome of suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the parties are not given anywhere in the excerpt; the judgment refers only to 'the Plaintiffs', 'the Defendants' and 'the 1st Interested Party'
Only the Plaintiffs filed submissions; the Defendants' opposition rests solely on the replying affidavit
The document header indicates 'Ruling Page 17 of 17' though the text is paginated 1-5, and the ruling is dated 23 October 2025 on an application dated 26 May 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shah & another v Murithi t/a Squad Three Services & 2 others; Ndaba & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E258 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7184 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Land Case No. E258 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7184/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.