Ebrahim & Company Limited v Gichombe t/a Kagich Investments & another (Environment and Land Case E646 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2667 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court ordered both sides in a lease dispute over burnt-out Wazir House to keep the property as it is 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 parties have met the threshold for grant of interlocutory injunctive relief in their respective applications
Key legal issues
#Whether the parties met the Giella threshold for interlocutory injunctive relief
Both parties raised serious triable issues on a subsisting lease and the fire damage; a prima facie case existed warranting preservation of the property, and the status quo was maintained rather than granting either party's specific injunctions
It was common ground that a lease dated 31st January 2019 bound the parties and that fire destroyed the premises on 6th January 2024. Liability for the fire, lease obligations and rights to possession were contested and reserved for trial. Both parties asserted proprietary/leasehold interests, the subject matter was unique and damages might not compensate, so preservation of the status quo carried the lower risk of injustice.
Legal principles established
#- Prima facie case test per Mrao Ltd v First American Bank
- At interlocutory stage the court makes no final findings on contested issues
- Where the court is in doubt, the course carrying the lower risk of injustice should be adopted
Court orders
#- 1.That the status quo obtaining on the ground with respect to the suit property known as L.R. No. 209/593 be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.That each party shall bear its own costs of the two applications
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 40(1) of the Constitution; Sections 14 and 145 of the Land Act; Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants and for unhindered access to continue repairs
The court instead ordered preservation of the status quo pending trial, finding neither party had disentitled the other
Defendants' application for a temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiff from alienating the property and for OCS enforcement
Same - the court opted for maintenance of the status quo rather than granting either party's specific injunctive orders
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of the two applications.
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.
Accordingly, the Court directs that the status quo obtaining on the ground with respect to the suit property known as L.R. No. 209/593 be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Each party shall bear its own costs of the two applications.
the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case has been established to warrant preservation of the suit property pending trial.
The Court is persuaded that the subject matter of the suit is unique and that any interference therewith may not be adequately compensated by an award of damages.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 6th May 2026 references applications dated 2025-2026; no internal contradiction, noted only for chronology
Neutral citation not provided in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ebrahim & Company Limited v Gichombe t/a Kagich Investments & another (Environment and Land Case E646 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2667 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC/E646/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2667/eng@2026-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.