Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELCLC. E127 OF 2025

Naker & 3 others v Muka Mukuu Farmers Cooperative Society Ltd (Environment and Land Case E127 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3900 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 June 2026
NMN. A. Matheka
1,862 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land buyer facing eviction won interim protection: the court ordered both sides to keep the status quo until the full case is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an interlocutory application dated 19th August 2025 brought under Order 40 Rules 1(a), 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking an injunction restraining the Defendant from evicting, entering, or interfering with the Plaintiffs' use and occupation of Zone 10 Plot No. 1-7 Donyo Sabuk, and from dealing with the Suit Property. The Plaintiffs/Applicants, partners of Aarem Investments and successors of the late Ramniklal Naker, contended that the Respondent sold them seven plots by a Memorandum dated 16th May 1994, that they took possession and occupied the land for over two decades, were issued a Beacon Certificate in 2007, and were promised certificates of title which were never issued. The Respondent instead declared the plots non-existent in 2021 and in June 2025 demanded they vacate. The Respondent maintained that the Memorandum was revoked through a Cooperative Commissioner's inquiry report of October 2008 and that alternative land with title was offered. Judge N.A. Matheka applied the settled Giella v Cassman Brown test as restated in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, considering prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience. Finding it unnecessary to resolve the disputed documentary history at the interlocutory stage and persuaded that the risk of injustice favoured interim protection, the court ordered that status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit, directed compliance with Order 11, and made costs costs in the cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Applicants have established a prima facie case with a probability of success
  2. 2.Whether the Applicants would suffer irreparable injury not compensable in damages if the injunction is not granted
  3. 3.Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the interim orders sought

Key legal issues

#
01

Grant of a temporary injunction under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The court found the application merited on an interim basis, ordering maintenance of the status quo rather than a full restraining injunction, having weighed the risk of injustice

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown as elaborated in Nguruman, the court assessed prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience. It noted the disputed 1994 Memorandum, subsequent sale, possession for over two decades, and the Respondent's claim of revocation via a 2008 inquiry report and offer of alternative land. Unable to interrogate the full documentary history at the interlocutory stage, the judge opted for the lower risk of injustice and preserved the status quo pending trial.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • The three Giella v Cassman Brown conditions for a temporary injunction are sequential, separate hurdles the applicant must surmount
  • A prima facie case in civil matters is one showing an apparently infringed legal right calling for an explanation from the opposite party
  • Where inconvenience is equal, the balance tilts toward the plaintiff

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.Parties to comply with Order 11 and set down the matter for hearing
  3. 3.Costs to be in the cause

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

NM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1(a), 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Relief refused

#

Interlocutory injunction in the specific terms of prayer 3 restraining eviction, entry, and dealings with Zone 10 Plot No. 1-7 Donyo Sabuk

The court instead granted a status quo order, finding it sufficient to preserve the position pending trial

p. 9

Costs

Costs to be in the cause.

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 view of the foregoing, I find that the application is merited and I order that status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit. Parties are advised to comply with order 11 and set down the matter for hearing. Costs to be in the cause.
p. 9Final orders and disposition
Bearing this in mind, I am convinced that there is a risk in not granting orders of temporary injunction than granting them, as I wait to hear the suit on its merits.
p. 8Balance of convenience / risk of injustice
The court in responding to prayers for interlocutory injunctive reliefs should always opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice.
p. 7Interlocutory injunctions - risk of injustice

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The delivery date printed in the judgment (23rd day of June 2026) is inconsistent with an application dated 19th August 2025 in a case numbered E127 OF 2025; the year 2026 may be a typographical error for 2025.

minor

The judgment uses 'Applicants/Plaintiffs' and 'Respondent/Defendant' interchangeably, and the formal names of the parties are not consistently stated in the body of the ruling.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Naker & 3 others v Muka Mukuu Farmers Cooperative Society Ltd (Environment and Land Case E127 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3900 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC. E127 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3900/eng@2026-06-23

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