Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission v Dayan Construction Company Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E459 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4523 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court froze two Nairobi properties pending trial after finding questions about how their titles were issued.
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 is entitled to the injunctive orders sought in the notice of motion dated 3rd September 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success for an interlocutory injunction
Yes - discrepancies in the timing of the allotment letter relative to the transfer raised triable questions challenging the process of issuance of title.
The court adopted the Mrao formulation of a prima facie case. It found the timing of the allotment letter to the 1st Respondent preceded the transfer of the property from Pillar Amusement park to Nairobi city council, raising questions about how the council could allot property it did not yet own. Such questions challenge the title issuance process and require ventilation at trial, establishing a prima facie case without proving the case to the hilt.
Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
Yes - as a public body protecting public property, without preservation the properties risk disposal and dissipation before the main suit is determined.
The court noted the Plaintiff is a public body mandated to protect public property. If the Defendants are found to have received the properties through fraud, the law deems them corruptly obtained and reverting to government. Pending trial the properties would be exposed to danger of disposal and dissipation, leaving the Plaintiff and taxpayers unable to reach them, hence irreparable injury justifying the injunction.
Whether the balance of convenience needed consideration
No - having found a prima facie case and likelihood of irreparable damage, the court did not need to interrogate the balance of convenience.
The court held that once the first two Giella conditions were satisfied, it was unnecessary to consider the third limb. The application was allowed on the strength of the prima facie case and the risk of irreparable harm, without interrogating the balance of convenience.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case does not mean a case that must succeed; it is established where the material before the court shows an apparently infringed right calling for rebuttal.
Court orders
#- 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, an order of injunction restraining the 1st Respondent himself, his agents, servants and/or employees or any other person interested in the suit premises from trespassing upon, transferring, leasing, wasting, developing, charging and/or dealing in any manner whatsoever with the suit properties LR No 19952/4 and LR No 19952/5
- 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land matters (interlocutory injunction application in a pending suit)
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.
That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, an order of injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the 1st Respondent himself, his agents, servants and/or employees or any other person interested in the suit premises herein be restrained from trespassing upon, transferring, leasing, wasting, developing, charging and/or dealing in any manner whatsoever with the suit properties LR No19952/4 and LR No 19952/5.
Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
A prima facie case does not mean a case that must succeed. If there is enough basis for the court to return a verdict that the Applicant’s case raises an issue which would require consideration with likelihood of success, a prima facie case is established.
These are questions that challenge the process of issuance of title and need to be ventilated on trial.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the application is dated 3rd September 2025 but the dispositif refers to the application dated 3rd September 2023
Chronological inconsistency: submissions are dated June 2026 but grounds of objection dated 8th July 2025 postdate the 2025 application yet precede the submissions
Applicant's identity is not stated in the body of the judgment; it is inferable only from the supporting affidavit deponent and submissions describing the Plaintiff as a public body protecting public property
Prima facie case conclusion is expressed awkwardly/incompletely
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission v Dayan Construction Company Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E459 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4523 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case (notice of motion dated 3rd September 2025; referenced as ELC Case no E087 of 2022 in citations). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4523/eng@2026-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.