Mbuthi v Muoki & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E038 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3068 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court granted a landowner an injunction stopping neighbours from trespassing and cultivating his plot, and moved the case to a lower court.
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 Applicant has met the threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction
- 2.Whether the court should deal with issues raised in the Respondents' document opposing the application given the earlier dismissed preliminary objection
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with probability of success
Yes - survey reports, damage assessment and letters from the Lands Office demonstrated ownership and encroachment of 1.69 acres
The court found the Applicant had shown a prima facie case: surveyors ascertained an encroached area of 1.69 acres, Kenya Forest officials assessed tree damage at Kshs.34,869, and the Lands Office confirmed ownership. The Respondents filed no replying affidavit and their document did not address the injunction issue.
Whether damages would be an adequate remedy
No - the trespass is continuous and involves indigenous trees which take long to mature, so damage would not be adequately compensated
The court took judicial notice that indigenous trees take long to grow and mature, and that the trespass was continuous. Ongoing interference with land could not be adequately compensated by an award of damages at the interlocutory stage.
Balance of convenience
It tilts in favour of the Applicant, who has prima facie shown ownership of the encroached area
The court stated it entertained no doubts on the materials before it, and that the balance of convenience favoured the Applicant, who had prima facie demonstrated ownership of the area complained of.
Transfer of the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction over part of the subject matter
Since the encroached area comprises only 1.69 acres, the suit was transferred to the Makindu Senior Principal Magistrates Court
Noting that the subject matter of the suit comprised only 1.69 acres, the court directed transfer to the Makindu Senior Principal Magistrates Court for hearing and disposal, consistent with the magistrates' court's pecuniary jurisdiction over that value.
Legal principles established
#- The principles for granting an interlocutory injunction are those in Giella v Cassman Brown: prima facie case with probability of success, inadequacy of damages, and balance of convenience if in doubt
- A prima facie case in civil cases is one where, on the material presented, the court concludes a right has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation
Court orders
#- 1.Injunction granted in terms of prayer 3 of the notice of motion dated 27th November, 2024, restraining the Respondents from trespassing on, destroying, cutting trees, grazing cattle, digging, cultivating or otherwise interfering with the Applicant's occupation and possession of Plot No. 40, Kathyaka Settlement Scheme
- 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the Respondents (prayer 5 allowed)
- 3.Suit transferred to Makindu Senior Principal Magistrates Court for hearing and disposal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over a land dispute (interlocutory application in a pending suit); no specific constitutional/statutory provision invoked in the ruling
Relief refused
#Prayers 1 and 2 of the motion
Marked as 'Spent'
Costs
Costs of the application to be borne by the Respondents (prayer 5 allowed)
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.
I therefore allow the Applicant's notice of motion dated 27th November, 2024 in terms of prayer 3 and 5. As it is evident that the subject matter of the suit is only comprised of 1.69 acres, this suit is transferred to Makindu Senior Principal Magistrates court for hearing and disposal. It is so ordered.
There is no doubt that the Applicant has demonstrated that he has a prima facie case with probability of success.
The trespass complained of is of a continuous nature. In the circumstances the Applicant will sufier damage which will not be adequately compensated in damages.
Technically, the application is not opposed as the document relied on did not address the issue of grant of injunction.
Issues in the judgment
#Names of individual parties are not given in the ruling; parties are referred to only as Plaintiff/Applicant and Defendants/Respondents
The court and case number are not expressly stated in the ruling; court inferred from context
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbuthi v Muoki & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E038 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3068 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (notice of motion dated 27th November, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3068/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.