Munywoki & another v Matungulu Farmers Company Ltd & 3 others (Land Case 138 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3924 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 has established a prima facie case with a probability of success
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury not compensable in damages if the temporary injunction is not granted
- 3.Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the temporary injunction
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction
The Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case on the documents adduced
The Plaintiff relied on a shareholder claim to Plot No. 189 and an annexure titled 'Matungulu Farmers Co. Ltd unpaid survey fees as at 31st December 1985', together with photographs of alleged acts of waste. The court found these documents insufficient because there was no survey establishing the alleged trespass or its extent. Without establishing the alleged infringement of the claimed right, the first of the three sequential Giella hurdles was not surmounted.
Whether the risk of injustice favoured granting or withholding the injunction
The court was convinced there was a greater risk in granting the temporary injunction than in withholding it pending the hearing of the suit on its merits
Applying the principle that the court should opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice, the court noted it had not had the opportunity to interrogate all potentially relevant documents or the annexures, including any history and chronology of events leading to the situation on the ground. On that incomplete evidential picture, granting injunctive relief carried the greater risk.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must sequentially surmount three distinct hurdles: establish a prima facie case, demonstrate irreparable injury, and show the balance of convenience lies in his favour
- A prima facie case in civil proceedings is one in which, on the material presented, the court concludes that a legal right has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party
- Irreparable injury is injury that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages, and a prima facie case alone is not sufficient; the applicant must show no other remedy is available
- The balance of convenience is really a balance of inconvenience; the Plaintiff must show that the inconvenience caused to him if the injunction is withheld would be greater than that caused to the Defendant if it is granted
- In responding to interlocutory injunctive relief, the court should always opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice
- Under Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a temporary injunction requires proof that the disputed property is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated, or that a party threatens to remove or dispose of it
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 18th November 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs, the application having been undefended
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land (Plot No. 189, Matungulu Farmers Company Limited Farm, Ndithini Sub-County, Machakos); application brought under Order 40 Rule 1(a) and (b) and Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants and/or their agents from entering, occupying, trespassing on or interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet possession of Plot No. 189, Matungulu Farmers Company Limited Farm, Ndithini Sub-County, Machakos, pending hearing of the application and of the suit
The documents adduced did not establish a prima facie case; there was no survey to establish trespass, and the court considered there to be a greater risk in granting than in withholding the injunction pending full interrogation of the documents at the hearing
Order directing OCS Ndithini Police Station to ensure compliance with the injunction orders
This ancillary relief fell with the dismissal of the application for a temporary injunction
Costs
No orders as to costs, as the application was undefended - 'I dismiss it with no orders as to costs as it was undefended.'
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 find that the documents adduced in support do not establish a prima facie case at this stage. There is no survey to establish trespass and to what extend if at all.
Bearing this in mind, I am convinced that there is a risk in granting orders of temporary injunction than not granting them, as I wait to hear the suit on its merits.
In view of the foregoing, I find that the application is not merited and I dismiss it with no orders as to costs as it was undefended. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery date stated as 23rd June 2026, which post-dates the November 2025 application filing date; the phrase 'DAY' also appears duplicated, suggesting a typographical error in the delivery date
The heading/citation reference 'ELCLC. NO. E138 OF 2025' is unusual and ambiguous as to whether the suit is filed in the Environment and Land Court or the Employment and Labour Relations Court, though the subject matter (land) indicates the Environment and Land Court
The judgment describes the Plaintiff in the singular while the application and prayers refer to 'Plaintiffs' in the plural, creating internal inconsistency as to the number of plaintiffs
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munywoki & another v Matungulu Farmers Company Ltd & 3 others (Land Case 138 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3924 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC. NO. E138 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3924/eng@2026-06-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.