Cuniu Company Ltd v County Government of Kajiado (Environment and Land Case 32 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 4836 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court dismissed a landowner's bid to expand an injunction to a disputed plot portion, ruling that claims cannot exceed what was pleaded.
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/Applicant is entitled the orders sought in the application dated 28th August 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to extend the interim injunction to the contested portion (omitted 0.0212ha) at the interlocutory stage
The application was dismissed; it sought final determination of ownership by interlocutory application and travelled beyond the pleadings
The plaint claims only Noonkopir Township/469 measuring 0.0628 hectares; the application sought to cover the omitted 0.0213ha. Whether the Plaintiff owns the disputed area is yet to be determined at trial. Following Gilbert v Endean, Airland Tours, IEBC v Mutinda Mule and the Supreme Court in Odinga v IEBC, the court held that parties are bound by their pleadings and that conclusive findings on disputed facts cannot be made on affidavit evidence at the interlocutory stage.
Legal principles established
#- Parties are bound by their pleadings and no party may travel beyond them to obtain relief over unpleaded property
- An interlocutory application does not decide the rights of parties and the court should make no conclusive findings on disputed facts
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 28th August 2025 is disallowed and dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Defendant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 33, 36, 37 of the Environment and Land Court Act (Cap. 8D); Sections 65, 66, 67 of the Land Act (Cap. 280); Orders 21, 22 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Order maintaining status quo restraining interference with Plot No. 45 Noonkopir
The application sought a final determination of the dispute at the interlocutory stage and travelled beyond the pleadings
Removal/eviction of containers and structures from the omitted 0.0212ha portion
Premised on disputed facts resolvable only after a full hearing
Extension of interim injunction over Noonkopir Township/469 to the entire Plot No. 45 Noonkopir
The plaint claims only Noonkopir Township/469 measuring 0.0628 hectares; the orders could not be extended to land not pleaded
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the Defendant
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 disallow the Plaintiff's application dated 28 th August 2025 and dismiss it with costs to the Defendant.
What the Plaintiff therefore seeks, albeit mischievously, is a final determination of the dispute by way of an interlocutory application.
It is well settled by precedent that parties are bound by their pleadings. Again it is trite that no party should be allowed to ‘travel beyond its pleadings’ which is exactly what the Plaintiff seeks to do in this application. It is not allowable.
the application is premised on disputed facts that can only be resolved after a full hearing through viva voce evidence not at the interlocutory stage.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the ruling records temporary injunction orders as issued on 7th July 2025 while the Plaintiff is elsewhere described as relying on injunctive orders issued on 7 April, 2025
Inconsistent acreage figures for the omitted portion: 0.0212ha in the application versus 0.0213 hectares in the analysis, and 0.884ha stated as the correct acreage in the Plaintiff's affidavit contrary to 0.084ha elsewhere
Party roles are inconsistently used in the judgment, alternating between 'Respondents' and 'Defendant' for the same party
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cuniu Company Ltd v County Government of Kajiado (Environment and Land Case 32 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 4836 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC/E032/2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4836/eng@2026-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.