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 ruling

Embakasi Industrial Projects Limited v Ndege & 4 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E120 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7752 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 November 2025
AKA. Y. Koross
1,478 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court froze all dealings on two land parcels after finding the same property may have been allocated to two different owners.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an unopposed notice of motion dated 20/12/2024 by the plaintiff, brought under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from constructing on, charging, selling, alienating or dealing with two parcels, LR 12715/14862 and LR 12715/14863, being subdivisions of LR 12715/601. The plaintiff averred it is the registered owner of LR 12715/601 under grant I.R. 45525, has been in possession and paid statutory taxes, but that the 1st defendant fraudulently obtained a provisional certificate over the same land and transferred it to the 2nd defendant in 2020, which subdivided it and charged one parcel to the 3rd defendant. No party filed written submissions; the sole issue was whether the plaintiff met the requirements for injunctive relief. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown as reaffirmed in Nguruman, and Mrao's definition of a prima facie case, the court found the two competing certificates of title disclosed a probable double allocation, establishing a prima facie case. The defendants did not dispute possession, so irreparable harm was satisfied and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff. The court granted the temporary injunction pending the hearing of the suit, directed compliance with Order 11, set a pretrial mention, and ordered costs in the cause. Delivered at Machakos on 11 November 2025 by Hon. A. Y. Koross, Judge.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the plaintiff has satisfied the legal requirements to justify the granting of injunctive relief

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case

Holding

Yes - the documents showed a probable double allocation of land, giving the registered plaintiff a clear right at risk

Reasoning

The plaintiff produced two certificates of title over the same LR number (12715/601) with different grant numbers and different chains of ownership, one culminating in the plaintiff and the other in the 2nd defendant, whose subdivisions derive from the conflicting grant. The court found this indicated probable double allocation and that the plaintiff, an alleged registered owner, demonstrated a clear right directly at risk from the acts sought to be restrained.

p. 3
02

Whether irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favour the plaintiff

Holding

Yes - the defendants did not dispute possession, and there is no alternative remedy; the balance of convenience favours the plaintiff

Reasoning

The court noted the defendants did not dispute the plaintiff's claim of possession, satisfying the second Giella condition because no alternative remedy would prevent the potential harm. It then concluded the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, completing the sequential test and justifying the temporary injunction pending hearing of the suit.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The three requirements for a temporary injunction are a prima facie case, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience, applied as sequential hurdles
  • A prima facie case in civil cases is one showing an apparent infringement of a right calling for rebuttal
  • Proof of a prima facie case alone does not justify an interlocutory injunction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, a temporary injunction restraining the 2nd defendant and its servants/agents from further constructing, charging, selling, disposing, alienating or dealing with LR numbers 12715/14862 (IR 222840) and 12715/14863 (IR 222841), subdivisions of LR 12715/601
  2. 2.Parties directed to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  3. 3.A mention date to be given for pretrial directions
  4. 4.Costs shall be in the cause

The bench

#

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

AK
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

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.

Pending the hearing and determination of the instant suit, a temporary injunction does issue restraining the 2nd defendant and its servants/agents from further constructing, charging, selling, disposing, and or alienating or dealing with the two (2) parcels of land known as land reference number 12715/14862 IR number 222840 and land reference number 12715/14863 IR number 222841 being subdivisions from land reference number 12715/601.
p. 4temporary injunction granted
Costs shall be in the cause.
p. 3costs order
all the above three conditions and stages are to be applied as separate, distinct and logical hurdles which the applicant is expected to surmount sequentially.
p. 3sequential application of the Giella test

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The certificate of title grant numbers are inconsistently rendered (I.R. 45525, I.R. 45925 and I.R. 49525 used for the plaintiff's title in different passages)

minor

The court refers to restraining LR numbers but the body also cites subdivisions 'IR Nos. 222840 and LR. number 12715/14862 IR.222841', repeating parcel 12715/14862 where 12715/14863 appears intended

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Embakasi Industrial Projects Limited v Ndege & 4 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E120 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7752 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7752/eng@2025-11-11

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