Ethics and Anti- Corruption Commission v Kaisha & 2 others (Land Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5188 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court froze all dealings with disputed government housing land because its original allocation may have been unlawful, blocking sale or transfer until trial.
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 has satisfied the legal threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - both parties confirmed the property was originally Government land reserved for civil servants' residential housing, so the lawfulness of the deceased's acquisition of title was a live triable issue.
The applicant, through its forensic investigator, averred that the suit property was reserved as Government housing for public use and was irregularly allocated by the 3rd respondent to the deceased in 1994. The respondents themselves admitted in their replying affidavit that the property had been reserved for Government residential housing but contended the deceased qualified for allocation as a senior public officer. Given this common position, the central issue became the lawfulness of the deceased's title, which persuaded the court that a prima facie case with chances of success had been established.
Whether irreparable injury was demonstrated and where the balance of convenience lay
The respondents hold a lease and the possibility of disposal was apparent; the Government having demonstrated ownership and possession, the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.
The court found that the respondents hold a lease over the suit property and that the possibility of disposal was apparent, meaning the applicant stood to suffer injury not adequately compensable in damages if the land were alienated before trial. As to the balance of convenience, the Government had demonstrated ownership and possession of the property, so preserving the status quo by restraining dealings pending trial tilted the balance in favour of the applicant.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience.
- The three Giella conditions are distinct, sequential and mandatory hurdles that cannot be leap-frogged.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents, by themselves, their agents, servants and/or assigns, from alienating, selling, charging or further charging, leasing, developing, sub-dividing, transferring, wasting, disposing or in any other manner dealing with land parcel Kakamega Municipality Block III/218 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.The costs of the application to be borne by the 1st and 2nd respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (inherent injunctive jurisdiction over land in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated)
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 an order of temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants/ Respondents by themselves, their agents, servants and/or assigns from alienating, selling, charging or further charging, leasing, developing, sub-dividing, transferring, wasting, disposing or in any other manner dealing with land parcel Kakamega Municipality Block III/218( the suit property) pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
I am persuaded that the applicant has established a prima facie case with chances of success.
A prima facie case in a civil application includes but not confined to a genuine and arguable case. It is a case which on the material presented to court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter.
That the costs of this application shall be borne by the 1st and 2nd respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical errors appear in the judgment (e.g. 'saisfied', 'demonstraion', 'he suit property'), and the delivery date (29th July 2026) post-dates the respondents' submissions dated 10th February 2026, which is consistent internally but the case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ethics and Anti- Corruption Commission v Kaisha & 2 others (Land Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5188 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 20th May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5188/eng@2026-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.