Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 2919 (KLR)

Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd v Murungi (Environment and Land Appeal E005 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2919 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 May 2026
2,546 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed you can recover money paid under a judgment later overturned, and can block land sales to secure that refund.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 02.04.2026 in which the Appellant, who had earlier succeeded on appeal in setting aside a judgment of the lower court (Nkubu PMCC No. 55 of 2018), sought an order of inhibition restraining the Respondent from dealing with LR No. Abogeta-Kiungone/1063 pending recovery of monies paid to her under the now-quashed decree. The Respondent had obtained judgment for Kshs. 421,867/= plus costs and interest, totalling Kshs. 592,884/=, which the Appellant paid in full under execution. On appeal, the judgment was set aside and the suit struck out for want of jurisdiction, but no express refund order was made. The Respondent opposed the application, contending that the claim for refund was premature, misconceived and legally untenable, and that the application amounted to an attempt to amend the court's judgment and was an abuse of process. The court framed two issues: entitlement to recovery of the decretal sum, and whether a basis for inhibition had been established. Applying Dhiman v Shah [2025] KECA 1264 (KLR) and Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that restitution follows as a matter of course when a decree is set aside, and that it would be unconscionable for the Respondent to retain the monies. On the second issue, the court held that execution against immovable property must be preceded by an order of inhibition to prevent alienation. The application was allowed with costs of Kshs. 25,000/= assessed against the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to recover decretal sum paid under a decree later set aside on appeal

Holding

The Appellant is entitled to recover the entire monies paid to the Respondent, together with interest and costs, on the basis of the impugned decree which was set aside on appeal.

Reasoning

It was common ground that judgment had been entered in the lower court for Kshs. 421,867/= plus costs and interest; the total paid was Kshs. 592,884/=. On appeal, the judgment was set aside and the suit struck out for want of jurisdiction, quashing the decree. The court held that restitution follows as a matter of course upon setting aside a decree, citing Dhiman v Shah and Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that it would be unconscionable for the Respondent to retain monies paid under a decree now non-existent.

p. 4
02

Whether a basis existed for orders of inhibition against the suit property

Holding

The Appellant established a basis for the issuance of the orders of inhibition, having a legal right to pursue recovery and restitution of the decretal sum, with the suit property being the only known asset of the Respondent.

Reasoning

The court reasoned that execution or attachment of immovable property must be preceded by an order of inhibition to avert alienation or transfer during execution proceedings. The Appellant had been unable to ascertain any other assets of the Respondent besides the suit property, and the Respondent might transfer or dispose of it to defeat execution. The inhibition preserves the status of the suit property pending execution.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a decree underpinning payment of a decretal sum is set aside, the judgment debtor is enjoined to restore, refund and restitute the benefits received, and such refund follows as a matter of course without necessarily requiring an express order by the appellate court.
  • Any execution or attachment of immovable property must be preceded by an order of inhibition to avert alienation or transfer of the property during execution proceedings.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of inhibition issued to be registered against the title in respect of LR No. Abogeta/L-Kiugone/1063 (the suit property)
  2. 2.The Land Registrar, Imenti South sub county/Nkubu, directed to register the order of inhibition against the suit property so as to preserve the title and avert any transactions in respect thereof
  3. 3.Costs of the Application awarded to the Appellant
  4. 4.Costs assessed in the sum of Kshs. 25,000/= only
On appeal from
Nkubu Principal Magistrate's Court
Nkubu PMCC No. 55 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 26 and 68 of the Land Registration Act, 2012; Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd v Murungi (Environment and Land Appeal E005 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2919 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2919/eng@2026-05-13

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.