Shariff & another v Anand Maisonettes Ltd & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E488 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1623 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court blocked an estate management company from subdividing land or changing its use without homeowners' consent, but refused to halt wall disputes until trial.
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 an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from effecting subdivision, or change of user in respect of the suit property
- 2.Whether the Plaintiffs have made a case for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from interfering with the wall to Anand Maisonettes Estate
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction against subdivision and change of user
Yes - the Plaintiffs are shareholders whose consent was required to changes to their titles; the subdivision and change of user were applied for without their authority
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles and the Mrao Ltd definition of a prima facie case. Relying on the Sectional Properties Act, the court found that the management company was required to engage all shareholders/long-term leaseholders in decisions concerning their leases and obtain consent for changes to titles. The Plaintiffs therefore had a right to know of and consent to the lease extension, change of user and subdivision applications.
Whether irreparable harm and balance of convenience favoured an interlocutory injunction
Yes - harm from change of user and subdivision without consent cannot be compensated in damages; the balance of convenience favours freezing those processes while permitting the lease extension
The court found the change of user from residential to mixed-use would irreversibly alter the estate's character and devalue the residential properties. Damages could not compensate. The balance of convenience favoured restraining registration of the change of user and subdivision while allowing the duly authorized lease extension to proceed, preserving rather than blocking the legitimate process.
Whether a permanent injunction could issue at the interlocutory stage to restrain the 1st Defendant from interfering with the estate wall
No - the disputed question of responsibility for the demolition required viva voce evidence and testing of the Kinyua statement
The court held that permanent injunctions should not be granted at an interim stage absent exceptional circumstances, citing Kenya Consortium To Fight Aids. Whether the 1st Defendant was responsible for demolishing the wall - given KURA's contrary indications and the unverified Kinyua statement - could only be determined after trial. The 4th Defendant also denied approving any demolition plans.
Legal principles established
#- As per the Sectional Properties Act, a management company must engage all shareholders or holders of long-term leaseholds in any decision concerning their leases, and shareholders must grant consent to changes to their titles
- Permanent injunctions should not be granted at an interlocutory stage unless in exceptional circumstances, as that would conclusively decide the suit
Court orders
#- 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants, jointly and severally, from proceeding with or effecting any subdivision, or change of user in respect of the suit property, save that the duly authorized lease extension application may be lawfully processed
- 2.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, an order restricting any dealings, transfer or disposition of the suit property save for the processing of the lawful extension of lease application
- 3.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act (injunctive relief in respect of land use, subdivision and change of user of Nairobi/Block 35/324)
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its directors, agents, contractors or servants from demolishing, altering, constructing or interfering with the wall to the main entrance, gate or access to Anand Maisonettes Estate (Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2025)
Permanent injunctions should not be granted at an interlocutory stage; responsibility for the demolition required viva voce evidence and testing of Brian Kinyua's statement
Costs
Costs will 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.
Pending the hearing and determination of the suit herein, an order of interlocutory injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the Defendants, jointly and severally, from proceeding with or effecting any subdivision, or change of user in respect of the suit property, save that the duly authorized lease extension application may be lawfully processed.
Pending the hearing and determination of the suit herein, an order be and is hereby issued restricting any dealings, transfer or disposition of the suit property save for the processing of the lawful extension of lease application.
as per the Sectional Properties Act, the 1st Defendant is supposed to engage all shareholders or holders of long term leaseholds in any decision concerning their leases.
the Plaintiffs have indeed established a prima facie case to warrant the orders of interlocutory injunction as sought. I further find that the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm which cannot be compensated by way of damages
Courts have asserted that permanent injunctions should not be sought at an interim stage unless in exceptional circumstances.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the appearance record: Ms Okelo is described as appearing 'for Attorney General for Plaintiff' although the Attorney General entered appearance for the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants
Discrepancy on the source of the wall demolition: the 1st Defendant attributes it to KURA/road works, while KURA's letter states it did not authorize demolition of the estate's wall
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shariff & another v Anand Maisonettes Ltd & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E488 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1623 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1623/eng@2026-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.