Shauri Moyo Furniture Makers Co-operative Society Limited v Njoroge & 7 others (Environment and Land Case E421 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1792 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court froze all dealings with a disputed Shauri Moyo plot, letting the occupying society stay put while the title battle is fully heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute herein
- 2.Whether the applicant in this case has satisfied the test for the grant of an order of temporary injunction
- 3.Which orders should the court issue?
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC vis-à-vis the Co-operative Tribunal
The court has jurisdiction because the dispute concerns ownership and title to land, not internal management of the society; Section 76(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act does not oust its jurisdiction.
The 6th Defendant invoked Section 76(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, contending the dispute was between members of the plaintiff society. The court held that jurisdiction is central and that the ELC's mandate under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act covers environment and use, occupation and title to land. Since the real question is whether the plaintiff or the 6th Defendant owns the suit property, the matter falls squarely within the ELC's jurisdiction, as reinforced by the Dias Property decision of the Court of Appeal.
Satisfaction of the Giella v Cassman Brown test for temporary injunction
A prima facie case was established on the papers (Certificate of Registration and Provisional Certificate of Title), but rather than an injunction, the circumstances warranted status quo orders preserving the position as at the ruling.
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman Limited, the court found the plaintiff entitled on the face of it to protection of its proprietary rights, and the members in occupation since 1973. However, since the 6th Defendant also holds a Certificate of Title and could deal with the property adversely, the court found an injunction ill-fitting. Invoking Section 13(7)(a) of the ELC Act and the 2024 Practice Directions, it issued status quo orders suo motu: the plaintiff remains in possession without dealing with the land, and the 6th Defendant may not transact using its title, pending full determination.
Legal principles established
#- Disputes concerning ownership of land, as opposed to the internal management of a co-operative society, fall within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court and not the Co-operative Tribunal
- The Environment and Land Court may, suo motu, issue status quo or preservation orders under Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act to preserve the subject matter of a land dispute
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff and the Defendants shall maintain the prevailing status quo in respect of the suit property at the time of the ruling
- 2.The Plaintiff, currently in possession of the suit property, shall continue in possession but shall not develop, sell, subdivide, transfer, alienate, dispose of or transact with the suit property until the matter is heard and determined
- 3.The 6th Defendant shall not sell, transfer, alienate, dispose of or in any other manner whatsoever transact with land parcel L.R. Number 209/1712 using the Certificate of Title in its name until the matter is heard and determined
- 4.The Officer Commanding Station, Shauri Moyo Police Station, be directed to ensure compliance of these orders
- 5.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution as read with Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Interim injunction restraining the Defendants from trespassing or interfering with the Plaintiff's occupation of LR No. 209/1712
The court found that although an injunction might be relevant, it did not suit the circumstances, and instead issued status quo orders under its preservation powers
Injunction restraining the 6th Defendant from selling, transferring or alienating the suit property (as framed in the application)
The court substituted status quo orders limited to preserving the substratum of the suit property rather than granting the injunction as sought
Costs
Costs of the application shall 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.
The Plaintifi who is currently in possession of the suit property shall continue to be in possession thereof but shall not develop, sell, subdivide, transfer, alienate, disposing ofi and/ or any other manner whatsoever transacting with the suit property until this matter is heard and determined.
The 6th Defendant shall not sell, transfer, alienate, dispose ofi and/or any other manner whatsoever transacting with the land parcel known as L. R. Number 209/1712 using the Certificate of Title in its name until this matter is heard and determined.
It is noted that the dispute here concerns ownership of the suit property, not the management of the Plaintifi. This Court must determine whether the Plaintifi or the 6th Defendant is the lawful owner of the suit property.
The purpose of an order of status quo has been reiterated in a number of decisions; in Republic –vs- National Environment Tribunal, Ex-parte Palm Homes Limited & Another [2013] eKLR, Odunga J. state,
In any litigation, jurisdiction is central. A court of law cannot validly take any step without jurisdiction.
Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the adverse-possession suit relied on by the plaintiff: the supporting affidavit narrative cites Nairobi Civil Case No. 3279 of 2014, while the 6th Defendant's affidavit and the court's narrative elsewhere reference Civil Case No. 3279 of 1994 (O.S.)
The judgment recites a vesting order of 5/3/1997 and provisional title of 14/5/1998 per the plaintiff's case, while the 6th Defendant asserts a later vesting order of 3/5/2002 issued by the High Court in the same originating suit — an unresolved factual conflict noted but not determined at this interlocutory stage
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shauri Moyo Furniture Makers Co-operative Society Limited v Njoroge & 7 others (Environment and Land Case E421 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1792 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case (Nairobi) – Application dated 16/10/2024 (suit number not stated in the judgment as reproduced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1792/eng@2026-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.