Nancy v Mugo (Environment and Land Appeal E054 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2588 (KLR)

The Respondent relied on a 2009 County Council letter and a Certificate of Confirmation of Grant. The court held the letter is general correspondence, not an allotment letter, lease or instrument of title, and the grant certificate only establishes standing as administrator, not proprietary right against a third-party purchaser. The Appellant's 2018 documentary trail was comparatively stronger, and the trial Magistrate erred in finding a prima facie case without analysing the competing documents.

The Respondent's complaint was collection of rental income by the Appellant, which is a measurable monetary loss incapable of founding irreparable harm under KCB v Muiri Coffee Estate. Conversely, the Appellant in possession and paying rates would suffer real and immediate harm from an order that in practical effect ejected him before determination of title validity - a dimension the trial court ignored.

Although unnecessary given failure of the first two limbs, the court found the equities favoured the Appellant: actual occupation, documentary consents, payment of rates, and the settled reluctance to disturb an established physical status quo. Granting the injunction amounted in substance to a mandatory injunction compelling the Appellant to vacate before trial.

The trial record showed the parties agreed to canvas the injunction application by affidavit evidence and written submissions, and both filed affidavits and submissions. The court therefore rejected the natural-justice complaint, characterising the true grievance as mis-evaluation of evidence addressed under grounds 1 to 4.