Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELCLC CASE NO. E072 OF 2025· [2026] KEELC 4013 (KLR)

Masai & 25 others v Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA) & 2 others (Land Case E072 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4013 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
1 July 2026
1,502 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Machakos Environment and Land Court refused to stop KURA's eviction of two Mlolongo landowners, finding their injunction case too weak for interim protection.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs, Beatrice Nthenya and George Muli Kimeu, moved the Environment and Land Court at Machakos by notice of motion dated 9th June 2025 under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1-4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking temporary injunctions to restrain the Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA) from evicting them from leasehold parcels L.R Nos. 32831 to 32842 pursuant to a notice dated 23rd May 2025. They asserted they were bona fide owners with leasehold titles, in uninterrupted possession without dispute from KURA, that the parcels were far from the KURA road and separated by a KPLC way leave of about 25 metres, and that the notice was suspect, fraudulent, too short, and would cause them irreparable harm. The 1st Respondent countered that a boundary survey identified the properties as encroaching on a 60-metre road reserve along the Mlolongo-Katani (Quarry Road), that a 30-day public notice had issued, and that road reserves and way leaves are public property not available for allocation to individuals. The court applied the settled Giella v Cassman Brown tripartite test, as restated in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, requiring a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience, surmounted sequentially. The judge, however, concluded that the risk of granting the injunction was greater than refusing it, since the documents bearing on the history and chronology of events had not been fully interrogated at the interlocutory stage. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs, leaving the suit to be heard on its merits.

Key legal issues

#
01

Principles for granting a temporary injunction

Holding

The application failed the settled Giella tripartite test; the court was not satisfied that an injunction should issue pending the hearing of the suit on its merits

Reasoning

The court recited the Giella v Cassman Brown principles as reiterated in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, requiring a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience, applied as separate, distinct and logical hurdles to be surmounted sequentially. Despite the Plaintiffs producing certificates of title and alleging the notice was fraudulent and too short, the judge was not persuaded on the materials before the court and declined to grant the injunction.

p. 9
02

Irreparable injury

Holding

The Plaintiffs did not demonstrate irreparable injury; the court adopted the Kogo v Tenai definition

Reasoning

The court cited Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai for the meaning of irreparable injury: harm that cannot be adequately compensated in damages, with no other remedy open to the applicant. The Plaintiffs asserted legal acquisition, possession and that the parcels were far from the KURA road, separated by a KPLC way leave, but the court found the overall risk favoured refusing the injunction pending full interrogation of the documents at trial.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must sequentially surmount the three hurdles of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 9th June 2025 is dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Masai & 25 others v Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA) & 2 others (Land Case E072 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4013 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC CASE NO. E072 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4013/eng@2026-07-01

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