Ashfam Enterprises Ltd & another v Ngalla & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 26 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3408 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Malindi court refused to stop SARICODO members working near the Sabaki River, ruling that Kenyan environmental cases should not be blocked on technicalities.
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 replying affidavit sworn by a non-party should be struck out on the preliminary objection
- 2.Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining the defendants from activities on the suit property
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of a non-party deponent to a replying affidavit in environmental litigation
The preliminary objection was dismissed; the court refused to strike out the affidavit given environmental conservation trends and the precautionary and in dubio pro natura principles
The court noted Kenya's ratification of international environmental instruments and municipal statutes such as EMCA, the Water Act and the Forests Act. Guided by global environmental litigation trends and the Constitution 2010, courts must respond expeditiously to conservation issues under the precautionary principle and reject locus standi challenges to environmental litigation. Striking out the affidavit would be out of tune where prima facie evidence shows environmental institutions had dealt with the matter.
Whether a temporary injunction should issue over the suit property
Dismissed; the plaintiffs failed to disclose critical information on the Sabaki River estuary ecosystem and to join proper parties, and the defendants' activities appear geared to conservation
The replying affidavit revealed that the suit plot originated from parcel 793, part of which was historically under river water within the riparian zone. The plaintiffs omitted this and failed to join proper parties. The defendants' CBO activities were classified as conservational, and the court found no ground to bar them absent proof they were deleterious to the ecosystem.
Legal principles established
#- Environmental litigation in Kenya should not be defeated on technical objections of locus standi; where in doubt the court rules in favour of protecting the environment (in dubio pro natura)
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection of the plaintiff is summarily dismissed with costs
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 23rd February 2026 is dismissed with costs to the defendants
- 3.The suit shall be mentioned on 19th June 2026 for pretrial directions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land and environmental disputes
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on, subdividing, building upon or dealing with the suit property
The application lacked merit; the plaintiffs were guilty of material non-disclosure, failed to join proper parties, and the defendants' activities appear conservational
Costs
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs; application dismissed with costs to the defendants
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.
the plaintifi is guilty of material non-disclosure, and I dismiss the same with costs to the defendants
to reject any challenge to environmental litigation premised on lack of locus standi, and to where in doubt rule in favour of protecting the environment - the in dubio pro natura principle
it behoves this court to examine this matter not as an ordinary land dispute but as a suit that may eventually raise ecological concerns pertinent to the Sabaki Estuary
The present suit shall be mentioned on 19th June 2026 for pretrial directions.
Issues in the judgment
#Suit property description inconsistent within the application ('Orig. No. 739/3' versus 'Orign. No. 793/3')
Name of the organization spelled inconsistently (SARICODO and SARIKODO)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ashfam Enterprises Ltd & another v Ngalla & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 26 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3408 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 23rd February 2026 (ELC suit, Malindi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3408/eng@2026-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.