Uyoga v Ali & another (Environment and Land Case E222 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3000 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused a temporary injunction over a Matumbato house because the applicant could not prove his lease was still valid.
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 Plaintiff/Applicant has met the threshold for the grant of the temporary injunctive orders sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff/Applicant met the threshold for temporary injunctive orders under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The application was dismissed: the Applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success because the validity and subsistence of the lease he relied upon remained contested and unresolved at the interlocutory stage.
The Applicant claimed to be a lawful lessee whose lease was renewed in March 2020 to run to 28th February 2030. The 2nd Defendant disputed any valid renewal, contending the lease was for six years only and expired in 2016, that subletting was prohibited without consent, and that the Applicant was not in occupation. The Court also noted prior suits over the same property. Without making definitive findings, the Court held the Applicant had not shown a clear and enforceable right capable of protection by interlocutory injunction.
Costs of the application
Costs were awarded to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent, the Court finding no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.
The Court invoked Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, under which costs follow the event unless the Court for good reason orders otherwise. Having found the Applicant failed to satisfy the threshold for interlocutory injunctive relief, the Court saw no reason to depart from that rule.
Legal principles established
#- The grant of an interlocutory injunction requires the applicant to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience
- The party claiming a prima facie case must show a clear and unmistakable right directly threatened by the act sought to be restrained
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 5th April 2025 is dismissed with costs to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from trespassing onto, occupying, alienating or interfering with House No. 33 Matumbato Estate (LR No. 209/6507)
The Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success; the validity and subsistence of the lease remains contested and can only be determined at full hearing
Eviction order against the 1st Defendant and order directing the OCS Capitol Hill Police Station to enforce compliance
These ancillary orders stood or fell with the injunction, which failed for want of a prima facie case
Costs
Costs of the Application to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent, costs following the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
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.
In the upshot, the Notice of Motion Application dated 5th April 2025 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent.
this Court is not persuaded that the Plaintifi/Applicant has demonstrated a clear and enforceable right capable of protection through an interlocutory injunction
The validity and subsistence of the lease relied upon by the Plaintifi/Applicant remains contested and can only be conclusively determined upon a full hearing of the suit.
First, an applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success. Secondly, an interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise sufier irreparable injury, which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages. Thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the lease agreement, stating 10th March 2010 in the grounds and affidavit summary but 15th March 2010 in the Respondent's averment and analysis
The parties are referred to only as '1st Defendant/Respondent' and '2nd Defendant/Respondent' without their full names being stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Uyoga v Ali & another (Environment and Land Case E222 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3000 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 5th April 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3000/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.