Ali & another (For and on behalf of all Nasra Gardens Residents Association) v Deputy County Commissioner Embakasi Central Sub-County & 3 others (Land Case E531 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 836 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kayole community group lost its bid to stop construction on Nasra Gardens land because it produced no documents proving any legal claim to the property.
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 Applicant has satisfied the threshold required for issuance of temporary injunctive orders
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success
No - the applicants produced no documentary evidence connecting them to the suit property
Although the applicants deponed that they had been operating on the suit property and that the 1st defendant transferred it to the 2nd defendant without public participation, no documentary evidence was attached demonstrating any legitimate claim or interest in the property. Applying the Mrao and Nguruman definitions, the court found the burden of showing a clear and unmistakable right worth of protection was not discharged, hence no prima facie case.
Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
No - the applicants did not identify any loss that damages could not compensate
The court turned to the second Giella limb. The applicants did not indicate what loss would be occasioned to them beyond monetary compensation. Adopting the Nguruman formulation, an injury is irreparable only where no standard exists to measure it with reasonable accuracy or where monetary compensation would never be adequate. No such injury was demonstrated.
Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction
No - the balance of convenience tilts against granting the injunction because the applicants have no protectable interest in the suit property
Having failed on the first and second limbs, the court assessed the balance of convenience and held that, since the applicants had demonstrated no interests in the suit property worth of protection, the balance tilted in favour of refusing rather than granting the injunction pending the hearing of the main suit.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for a temporary injunction must first establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, then irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages, failing which the balance of convenience decides
- A prima facie case is one which, on the material presented, discloses a right apparently infringed by the opposite party so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal
- The party bearing the burden of proving a prima facie case must show a clear and unmistakable right directly threatened by the act sought to be restrained, on a balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 8th October 2025 is without merit and dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules (interlocutory injunctive jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining encroachment, trespass and interference with Nairobi Block 157/3 (Nasra Gardens, Kayole) pending inter-partes hearing and pending main suit
Applicants failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, could not show irreparable harm not compensable by damages, and the balance of convenience did not favour the injunction
Costs of the application
Each party ordered to bear its own costs
Costs
Each party to bear its 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.
THAT the application dated 8th October 2025 is without merit and dismissed
Each party to bear its own costs.
I find that the applicants have not met the threshold for the orders of temporary injunction to be issued.
The applicants have not attached any documentary evidence to show how they have legitimate claims in the suit property worth of being protected by this honourable court hence lack proof of a prima facie case.
An injury is irreparable where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy or the injury or harm is such a nature that monetary compensation, of whatever amount, will never be adequate remedy
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the applicants as both 'Applicants' and 'Plaintiffs' and refers to the plaintiff as a community-based organization, but the full registered name of the plaintiff and the names of the four defendants are never stated in the judgment
The supporting affidavit is described as sworn by Samuel Otieno Odhiambo 'on behalf of the plaintiffs' although the plaintiffs are referred to in the singular as an organization
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ali & another (For and on behalf of all Nasra Gardens Residents Association) v Deputy County Commissioner Embakasi Central Sub-County & 3 others (Land Case E531 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 836 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC E531 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/836/eng@2026-02-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.