Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Suit relating to LR No 12034/3 (IR 195069) - Notice of Motion dated 1st October 2025

Mokaya & 16 others v Emco Billets and Steel Limited; Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited (Interested Party) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 221 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 January 2026
1,709 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside a land injunction because the party who obtained it hid key facts from the court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Kullow J) determined a notice of motion dated 1st October 2025 in which the applicant, the defendant in a pending adverse possession suit over LR No 12034/3 (IR 195069), sought discharge of ex parte interlocutory injunctive orders issued on 2nd July 2025 in favour of the plaintiffs. The applicant alleged the injunction was procured by concealment of material facts: an un-disclosed sale agreement dated 30th January 2025, subdivision of the suit property completed before the orders were issued, the existence of the applicant's steel factory operating on 26.6774 acres within the suit property, and failure to disclose the true acreage relative to the 45.99 acres claimed. The plaintiffs, through a replying affidavit sworn by Daniel Nyanchoga Mokaya, denied concealment and argued the injunction was necessary because the defendant was subdividing the suit property. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicant had established valid grounds to set aside the orders. Relying on Order 40 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the established case law factors for discharging injunctions, the court found the alleged concealments were not controverted - the sale agreement was not denied, the steel factory's existence was confirmed, and the plaintiffs were dismissive on the vital issue of acreage. It held the injunction had been obtained through concealment of facts which, if known, would have altered the court's reasoning. The application was allowed, the ex parte interlocutory injunctive orders were set aside, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs. No order was made striking out the plaintiffs' underlying application.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the interlocutory injunctive orders issued on 2nd July 2025 should be discharged
  2. 2.Who should bear the costs?

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant established valid grounds to set aside the injunction orders issued on 2nd July 2025

Holding

Yes - the ex parte injunction was obtained through concealment of material facts, namely the sale agreement, the already completed subdivision, the existence of a steel factory on 26.6774 acres, and the failure to disclose the correct acreage

Reasoning

The court applied Order 40 Rule 7 and the case law factors for discharging an injunction. It found that the plaintiffs did not controvert the alleged concealments: the sale agreement of 30th January 2025 was not denied, the steel factory's existence was confirmed, and the plaintiffs were dismissive about the acreage. The court concluded that had the judge who granted the injunction known these facts, the reasoning would have differed, warranting discharge of the orders.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The discretion under Order 40 Rule 7 to discharge an injunction must be exercised sparingly and not as a tool for appeal, but an injunction obtained by concealment of material facts may be set aside
  • An interlocutory injunction obtained by misrepresentation or concealment of material facts will be discharged on the application of the aggrieved party

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated 1st October 2025 is allowed
  2. 2.The ex parte interlocutory injunctive orders issued on 2nd July 2025 are set aside
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs

The bench

#

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

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction and Order 40 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules permitting discharge, variation or setting aside of injunction orders

Relief refused

#

Prayer that the plaintiffs' application dated 28th June 2025 be struck out summarily

The court only set aside the ex parte injunctive orders and made no order striking out the originating summons or the application of 28th June 2025

p. 4

Costs

Each party to bear their own costs.

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 upshot of the foregoing is that the applicant’s application is merited and the ex parte interlocutory injunctive orders are hereby set aside.
p. 4Disposition - setting aside of injunction
Each party to bear their costs.
p. 4Costs order
It is settled law that if an interlocutory injunction has been obtained by means of misrepresentation or concealment of material facts, the same will on the application of the party aggrieved be discharged.
p. 3Grounds for discharging an interlocutory injunction
proof that the injunction was obtained by concealment of facts which if presented would have worked against the granting of the injunction
p. 3Factors for discharge of injunction
Any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the court on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order.
p. 2Order 40 Rule 7 jurisdiction

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not state the full names and designations of the plaintiffs and the interested party; parties are referred to only through the deponents and counsel's appearances

minor

The judgment lacks a formatted case number header; the case is identified only by reference to the suit property

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mokaya & 16 others v Emco Billets and Steel Limited; Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited (Interested Party) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 221 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Suit relating to LR No 12034/3 (IR 195069) - Notice of Motion dated 1st October 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/221/eng@2026-01-21

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