Ramadhani & another (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Mariam Ali Chepkoech) v Abud & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E447 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7754 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court blocked the sale and transfer of disputed family land after administrators sold it without proof that all beneficiaries had consented.
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 Plaintiffs have met the threshold for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with suit property REF No. 209/2111 (IR. 228456) now Nairobi Block 40/399, pending the outcome of this suit
Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established for an interlocutory injunction
The court found a prima facie case established on the pleadings and documents, including the 1st to 3rd Defendants' admission of having disposed of the suit property
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown test and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case. It noted the plaintiffs' claimed beneficial interest through the estate of Mariam Ali Chepkoech, and the defendants' admission of selling the property. It reasoned that the administrators held the property in trust and could not dispose of it without proof of all beneficiaries' consent, so preservation of the substratum of the suit was warranted.
Whether the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages, and where the balance of convenience lies
Irreparable harm was found and the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction to protect the substratum of the suit
Given the sale of the estate property to third parties and the 1st to 3rd Defendants' ongoing eviction of tenants, the court found the plaintiffs would suffer harm not compensable by damages, and that preservation was necessary to protect the subject matter pending trial.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case is one in which, on the material presented, a tribunal properly directing itself concludes that a right has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party
- Administrators holding property in trust for beneficiaries of a deceased's estate should not dispose of it unless there is proof that all the beneficiaries consented to the disposal
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants, whether by themselves, their agents and/or servants, from trespassing into, transferring or in any way dealing with land parcel REF No. 209/2111 (IR. 228456) now Nairobi Block 40/399, pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a land dispute (not expressly cited 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.
In the foregoing, I find the Notice of Motion application dated 29th October 2024 merited and will allow it. Costs will be in the cause
the 1st to 3rd Defendants were only holding the suit property in trust for the beneficiaries of the estate of Fatima Ali Salimi and were not supposed to dispose of it, unless there is proof that all the said beneficiaries consented to the said disposal
I opine that it would be pertinent to preserve the substratum of the suit herein
Issues in the judgment
#Defendants' names are not individually set out in the judgment; parties are referred to only by number
The body of the ruling repeatedly refers to the applicant(s) as 'the Plaintiffs' while the cause number of the principal suit is not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ramadhani & another (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Mariam Ali Chepkoech) v Abud & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E447 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7754 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 29th October 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7754/eng@2025-11-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.