Mara North Holding Limited v Skyship Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7892 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Narok Environment and Land Court declined to stop a hot-air balloon operator from flying low over the Mara conservancy, because the conservancy failed to prove urgent harm.
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/Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff/Applicant will suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted
- 3.Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the orders sought
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
Not established. The allegations of trespass and low balloon flights required evidence tested at trial; whether the Defendant has easement or overriding rights cannot be determined on affidavit evidence
The Plaintiff held leases over the suit parcels, but the Defendant denied trespass and asserted easement/overriding interests via a counterclaim. Whether those rights exist depends on contested facts requiring witness testimony and cross-examination, which cannot be resolved at the interlocutory stage. Consequently the Plaintiff failed to show an apparently infringed right calling for rebuttal.
Irreparable harm
Not established; damages would be an adequate remedy if the Plaintiff ultimately succeeds
Though the Plaintiff alleged loss of tourism business, ecological damage and safety risks, these allegations could only be determined at full trial. There was no evidence the Defendant would be unable to compensate the Plaintiff in damages. Trespass, if proven, is compensable in damages, so the second Giella limb failed.
Balance of convenience
Tilts in favour of maintaining the status quo, with each party carrying on its tourism business on its respective parcels, without injunctive orders
The Defendant's entire ballooning business would collapse if restrained before determination of its claimed easementary rights, whereas the Plaintiff's alleged harm remains unproven and compensable. Restraint pending trial would cause the Defendant greater harm; hence the status quo should be preserved without injunctions.
Legal principles established
#- Interlocutory injunctions are equitable remedies granted sparingly, on the Giella v Cassman Brown principles of prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience
- A court on an interlocutory injunction application must not make final findings of contested facts and law
- Where no prima facie case exists on the essential point, any claim to interlocutory relief fails
- An injunction should not be granted where damages would be an adequate remedy
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Plaintiff/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2025 entirely
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- 3.Refusal to direct the OCPD/OCS Mulot Police Station to enforce any orders (no orders granted to enforce)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Civil Procedure Act (Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A), Civil Procedure Rules 2010 (Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 4 and Order 51) and Section 3 of the Trespass Act
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining the Defendant from trespassing on the listed suit parcels pending hearing and determination of the suit
No prima facie case, no irreparable harm, and balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo
Injunction restraining the Defendant from flying hot-air balloons below 1,000 feet over the Plaintiff's member camps pending determination of the suit
Disputed allegations could not be determined on affidavit evidence; damages not shown to be inadequate
Order directing the Officer Commanding Mulot Police Station to assist in enforcement of the court's orders
No injunctive orders were granted, so there was nothing to enforce
Costs
Costs be in the cause
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 a nutshell, this court finds the instant Application dated 14th July 2025, Not merited. The said Application is dismissed entirely with costs being in the cause. It is so ordered.
For the above reason, this court finds and holds that the Plaintifi/Applicant has not established that it has a prima facies case with probability of success at the trial.
Consequently, the court finds and holds that the Plaintifi/Applicant has not adequately established that it will sufier irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by an award of damages.
the court finds and holds that the balance of convenience tilt in maintaining the status quo, and the status quo herein is to allow the parties to continue carrying on their tourism business and/or activities on their respective parcels of land without issuing any injunctive orders.
Having found that the Plaintifi/Applicant is not deserving of the injunctive orders, then the court cannot direct the OCPD Mulot Police Station to enforce any orders.
Issues in the judgment
#Defendant's individual/corporate name never stated in the judgment text; only described by role and business
Case number of the present suit not stated in the judgment extract; only the related Narok CMCC No. E195 of 2023 is named
Internal contradiction on the status quo: court found balance of convenience tilted to the Defendant yet ordered maintenance of status quo without injunctive orders
Garbled/typographical rendering of the Giella principle and inconsistent citations ([1973] EA 348 vs EA 358); plaintiff parcel numbers inconsistently listed (e.g. 'Dagurugurueti/51' vs '/517', parcel 61 listed twice, 111 vs 11)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mara North Holding Limited v Skyship Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7892 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2025; related suit Narok CMCC No. E195 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7892/eng@2025-11-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.