Akango & 11 others v Hagono & 3 others; National Environment Management Authority Public Health and Sanitation Office & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E044 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 413 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Siaya court refused to stop gold mining on private land because residents produced no evidence of the mining or the damage they claimed.
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 has met the criteria for the grant of an order of temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of this suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success for purposes of a temporary injunction
No prima facie case was established; the applicants' material did not prove the alleged mining activities, structural damage or noise pollution
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court found the applicants had only presented a search of the suit property. No measurements, reports or formal complaints to authorities were adduced to substantiate the alleged environmental harm under the Noise Regulations 2009. A land search alone is not proof of the activities and harm sought to be restrained.
Legal principles established
#- An unopposed application must still be considered on its merits.
- It is the applicant's duty to place evidence before the court to enable a preliminary conclusion of a prima facie case.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 5/11/2025 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, and Section 68 of the Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from carrying out mining activities on Central Alego/Komolo/3435 pending hearing and determination of the suit
No prima facie case established; the applicants did not place evidence of the alleged mining activities, structural damage or noise levels before the court
Costs
No orders as to 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.
in an interlocutory injunction application the Applicant has to satisfy the triple requirements to a, establishes his case only at a prima facie level, b, demonstrates irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is not granted and c, ally any doubts as to b, by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour.
Based on the material placed before this court, this court is not persuaded that a prima facie case has been made to warrant the grant the orders of injunction at this stage of the proceedings.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the application dated 5/11/2025 is dismissed. No orders as to costs. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Parties are inconsistently referred to as both Defendants and Respondents in the same judgment
No proof of service of the court's directions and no return of service filed by any party
The judgment is styled a ruling but dated after the reserved ruling date of 9/01/2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akango & 11 others v Hagono & 3 others; National Environment Management Authority Public Health and Sanitation Office & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E044 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 413 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 5/11/2025 (Siaya ELRC/ELC suit, case number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/413/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.