Jacob Muthama Maundu & 2 others v Commissioner, Deputy County Makindu & 3 others; Silvester Kilungya Maweu (Interested Party)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Makueni refused to stop a registered landowner from dealing with disputed land because the applicants proved no ownership or possession.
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 Applicants have demonstrated the threshold for issuance of conservatory/injunctive orders pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
- 2.Whether an order for setting aside of the impugned decision and an order of inhibition may issue at this stage
Key legal issues
#Threshold for conservatory/injunctive orders pending petition
Applicants must show a prima facie case and irreparable injury; they showed neither, having no proven legal or beneficial interest, possession, or threat of eviction
The court applied the Munya conservatory-orders test and the prima facie case definition in Mrao. The Applicants produced the impugned decision but no proof of possession or threat of eviction. The Interested Party produced a title deed in the name of Maweu Muthiani pursuant to the Minister's appeal decision. The court found no conclusive proof of violation of the Applicants' property rights and no demonstrated legal or beneficial interest in the suit property.
Whether setting aside and inhibition orders may issue at the interlocutory stage
No - setting aside the impugned decision is a final order requiring full hearing; inhibition had no basis
The court held that the validity of the 1st Respondent's decision is the heart of the petition and cannot be determined on untested, contrasting allegations at an interlocutory stage. Citing Julius Kuria Nganga v Wambui Kigamba, the court noted it is not called upon to determine the very issues with finality at this stage, only whether the applicant deserves the orders on the laid-down criteria.
Legal principles established
#- Setting aside an administrative decision is a final remedy unavailable at the interlocutory stage of a petition
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 10th November, 2025 is dismissed with costs
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
Relief refused
#Temporary order of injunction restraining the Interested Party from selling, cutting trees or using Plot No. 1012 Kalii Adjudication Section
Applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, possession, or threat to their occupation
Order setting aside the 1st Respondent's decision in Appeal to the Minister Case No. 205/2000
Final orders that can only issue after full hearing of the petition
Order of inhibition stopping further dealings over Plot No. 1012 Kalii Adjudication Section
No basis established at the interlocutory stage
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the Interested Party/Respondents (costs accordingly).
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.
It is therefore the finding of this court that the Applicants have not demonstrated a prima facie case for the issuance of conservatory orders as sought.
In the end, the application herein is unmerited. It is dismissed with costs accordingly.
The same decision cannot be set aside at an interlocutory stage with contrasting allegations which have not been established.
Conservatory orders, consequently, should be granted on the inherent merit of a case, bearing in mind the public interest, the constitutional values, and the proportionate magnitudes, and priority levels attributable to the relevant causes.
Issues in the judgment
#Impugned decision date inconsistently stated
Affidavit sworn before the motion it supports
Motion dated November 2025 but prayer 4 refers to decision 'delivered on 18th of August 2020'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jacob Muthama Maundu & 2 others v Commissioner, Deputy County Makindu & 3 others; Silvester Kilungya Maweu (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. E002 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5724/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.