Shield Hope Limited v Nairobi City County Government & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E041 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5101 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court allowed a matatu operator to join a parking bay dispute, lifted an injunction obtained without hearing it, but refused new interim protection.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court had jurisdiction to determine the application
- 2.Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 3.Whether the ex parte injunction issued on 20th February 2026 should be set aside
- 4.Whether the Applicant has established a case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over the dispute
The Court had jurisdiction; the core issue is competing entitlement to occupy and use designated parking bays, which relates to use and occupation of public land under Section 13 of the ELC Act
The Plaintiff's suit seeks to protect occupation of designated PSV parking bays and the Applicant asserts exclusive rights to the same spaces. Licences, parking allocations and the share sale agreement are merely evidentiary. Section 13 extends beyond ownership disputes to use and occupation of land, so regulatory-origin rights do not oust jurisdiction.
Joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2)
Joinder allowed; the Applicant demonstrated an identifiable stake because final determination of the parking bays would inevitably affect its rights
Applying Order 1 Rule 10(2) and the principles on interested parties, the Court found the Applicant, a PSV operator using the same bays and directly restrained by the interim orders, to be a necessary party whose presence enables effectual adjudication of all questions in the suit.
Setting aside the ex parte injunction of 20th February 2026
Set aside, because the Applicant was directly affected by orders made without hearing it
The injunction restrained not only the named Defendants but other PSV operators, including the Applicant. Having found it a necessary party, natural justice required that orders affecting its operations not remain in force without a hearing. The subordinate court orders in MCCOMMSU/E1447/2025 did not bind the Plaintiff and could not alone justify setting aside, but the non-joinder sufficed.
Interlocutory injunction for the Applicant
Declined; the Applicant had not filed a defence and no prima facie case could be assessed
Although joinder was allowed, the Applicant had not yet pleaded its case. Interlocutory relief requires a pleaded cause of action and identifiable issues from pleadings, so the Court could not at that stage determine whether a prima facie case existed.
Legal principles established
#- An ex parte interlocutory injunction may be discharged where obtained through material non-disclosure, misrepresentation, concealment of material facts, abuse of process, or where subsequent events make its continuation unjust
- Disputes over competing rights to occupy and use designated PSV parking bays fall within the ELC's jurisdiction even where rights originate from statutory allocations rather than title deeds
- It offends natural justice to leave orders affecting a non-party's operations in force without giving it an opportunity to be heard
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for joinder is allowed and the Applicant joined as 4th Defendant
- 2.The Plaintiff shall amend and serve the amended Plaint within 7 days of this ruling
- 3.The 4th Defendant shall file and serve its statement of defence within 24 days of the amended plaint
- 4.The ex parte injunction issued on 20th February 2026 is set aside
- 5.The prayer for interlocutory injunction is declined
- 6.Costs shall abide with the outcome of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunction restraining the Plaintiff from blocking the Applicant's vehicles at the disputed parking slots
The Applicant had not yet filed its defence; interlocutory relief must be based on a pleaded cause of action
Costs
Cost shall abide with the outcome of the 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.
In light of the foregoing, I find that the issues raised by the Applicant fall within this Court’s jurisdiction.
In light of the foregoing, I find that Applicant has demonstrated an identifiable stake in the proceedings.
it would be contrary to principles of natural justice to allow orders affecting its operations to remain in force without affording it an opportunity to be heard.
In the end, I find that the application partially succeeds in the following terms a) The prayer for joinder is allowed.
The ex parte injunction issued on 20 th February 2026 is set aside.
Cost shall abide with the outcome of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph 58 is labelled 'Regarding the third issue' but addresses the fourth issue (interlocutory injunction), duplicating the heading of paragraph 49-57
The final orders contain duplicated lettering - two orders marked 'd)'
The judgment labels Francis Karoki Muruatetu a decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya but cites it as (2010) eKLR, a year inconsistent with that Court's establishment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shield Hope Limited v Nairobi City County Government & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E041 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5101 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LC E041 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5101/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.