Kinya Kimani v Vajomo General Suppliers Limited & Rospella Jemutai Cherop
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court refused to stop construction on disputed property because the real fight was over a will's distribution, which belongs in a different court.
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's application meets the threshold for granting of temporary injunction
- 2.Who should bear cost of this application?
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff met the Giella v Cassman Brown threshold for a temporary injunction
No. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, irreparable injury or entitlement to the court's protection.
The court applied Giella v Cassman Brown and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank on what constitutes a prima facie case, and Kenleb Cons Ltd on full disclosure. The plaintiff was not the registered owner, was not in occupation, and his real grievance was against a certificate of confirmation of grant in a succession cause, a matter outside the ELC's jurisdiction. Without a protectable right, no irreparable damage or balance of convenience could arise.
Whether the ELC could entertain a claim that impeaches a certificate of confirmation of grant
No; the court has no jurisdiction over disputes as to confirmation of grants, which are reserved to the probate and administration court under the Law of Succession Act.
The defendants argued, and the court accepted, that the real issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to inherit the suit property, a matter for the probate court under the Law of Succession Act. The plaintiff had produced no order revoking, annulling, setting aside or suspending the subsisting grant confirmed in Nakuru High Court Succession Cause No. E165 of 2023, so the ELC could not protect an alleged beneficial entitlement inconsistent with that grant.
Who should bear the costs of the application
Costs were not awarded to either party; they were ordered to abide the outcome of the main suit.
Although each side sought costs, the court declined to make an immediate award, reserving the question of costs until the main suit is determined.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an injunction must make a frank and full disclosure of all relevant facts and show a legal or equitable right requiring protection by injunction
- Where the claim rests on contesting a certificate of confirmation of grant, the ELC lacks jurisdiction and no prima facie case can be established before it
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 6th February 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court); interim relief sought under Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the defendants from entering, building on, depositing building materials on or dealing with land parcel Njoro/Ngata Block 1/2095 (New Kiambu) pending hearing and determination of the suit
Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case; the dispute concerns a certificate of confirmation of grant over which the ELC has no jurisdiction, and he is not in occupation nor likely to suffer irreparable damage
Order directing OCS Menengai Police Station to ensure compliance of the orders
Fell with the main injunctive relief, which was refused
Costs of the application to the Plaintiff
Costs ordered to abide the outcome of the main suit instead
Costs
Costs shall abide the outcome of the main 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 conclusion, I find no merit in this application. The same is dismissed. The costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
As this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with this issue, I find that the Plaintiff/Applicant has not established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of the orders sought.
The Plaintiff/Applicant is not in occupation of the suit property; hence he has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to suffer any irreparable damage that cannot be compensated by an award of damages.
to succeed in an application for injunction an applicant must not only make a frank and full disclosure of all relevant facts to the just determination of the application but must also show that he has a right, legal on equitable, which requires protection by injunction
Issues in the judgment
#Defendants' submissions state three issues but list four
Quoted holding from Kenleb contains typographical errors ('legal on equitable')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kinya Kimani v Vajomo General Suppliers Limited & Rospella Jemutai Cherop", Case Analysis (2026). ELC No. E004 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6177/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.