1. The Notice of Motion dated 23rd June 2026 is presented under Articles 22, 23, 23(3) and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya and rule 23 of the Constitutuinon of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules. The Applicant seeks the following orders-
a. Spent
b. Spent
c. Spent
d. Spent
e. Spent
f. Spent
g. Spent
h. THAT the interim orders granted in prayers (b) to (g) above be and are hereby confirmed and do continue pending the hearing and determination of the Petition.
i. THAT an Order do issue directing the 8th Respondent to receive and act upon the Petitioner’s reports and to cause to be investigated the conduct of the police officers of Mwiki Police Station who participated in the Petitioner’s abduction and the attempted bribery of a witness.
j. THAT the costs of this Application be provided for
k. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant such other or other orders as it may deem just and expedient.
2. The application is supported by the Petitioner’s affidavit sworn on 23rd June 2026. He describes himself as a senior citizen aged 62 years. The 1st to 4th respondents are members of his family. He seeks conservatory orders restraining them from confining him at a rehabilitation centre and from interfering with his properties.
3. He alleges that the respondents, acting in concert with the local administration and police, have violated his constitutional rights under Articles 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 39, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 57. The respondents were served and appeared in Court but did not file any response.
4. Their silence, though not fatal, leaves the Applicant’s averments uncontroverted
5. The jurisprudence on conservatory orders is well settled and has found expression in numerous court decisions. In Munya v Kithinji & 2 others [2014] KESC 30 (KLR) at paragraph 86 stated the Court stated as follows: - [86] …… 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 course s.
6. In Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School vs. City County Director of Education & 2 Others [2015] eKLR , the Court summarized the principles for grant of conservatory orders as: -
(i) The need for the applicant to demonstrate an arguable prima facie case with a likelihood of success, and to show that in the absence of the conservatory orders, he is likely to suffer prejudice.
(ii) The second principle is whether the grant or denial of the conservatory relief will enhance the constitutional values and objects of a specific right or freedom in the Bill of Rights.
(iii) Thirdly, the Court should consider whether, if an interim conservatory order is not granted, the petition or its substratum will be rendered nugatory. (iv) Whether the public interest will be served or prejudiced by a decision to exercise discretion to grant or deny a conservatory order.
7. In Wilson Kaberia Nkunja vs. The Magistrate and Judges Vetting Board and Others Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No.154 of 2016 (2016) eKLR the Court summarized three main principles for consideration on whether to grant conservatory orders as follows: -
(a) An applicant must demonstrate that he has a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and that unless the court grants the conservatory order, there is a real danger that he will suffer prejudice as a result of the violation or threatened violation of the Constitution.
(b) Whether, if a conservatory order is not granted, the Petition alleging violation of, or threat of violation of rights will be rendered nugatory; and
(c) The public interest must be considered before grant of a conservatory order.
8. The Court in Damour Florian Emmeric v Director of Immigration Services [2022] KEHC 1556 (KLR) emphasised that these principles are not exhaustive. Depending on the nature of the matter, additional considerations may arise, including imminent danger to rights, proportionality, laches, and the presumption of constitutionality.
9. Applying the test to the case, I am inclined to grant some interim relief to the applicant. Based on the facts as set out in the affidavits of the Applicant and the affidavits in support sworn by Hannah Wambui Kimani and Paul Ouma Neko there is apparently a fall out between the applicant and some members of his family. They have resorted to using the local administration and the area police to intimidate the applicant and have proceeded to have the applicant detained at the facility of the 7 th respondent against his will. He has an arguable case
10. On the second principle, there is a real danger of continued harassment. He avers that the local chief continues to summon him, and that rent from his properties was collected during his detention. These allegations remain unchallenged.
11. The balance of convenience and public interest favour preservation of the Applicant’s rights pending determination of the Petition.
12. The Applicant seeks orders regarding the preservation of his assets and recovery of rental income, the proper forum for that in light of Article162(2) and 165 (5)(b) is the Environment and Land Court, I decline therefore to grant orders with regard to the same. Likewise, I note that the applicant is aggrieved by the inaction of the 8 th respondent with regards to reports he has made, however there are existing mechanisms where he should lodge his complaint. I am obliged to exercise restraint on the authority of Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume [1992] KECA 42 (KLR)
13. Based on the foregoing the following orders will issue;
a. Pending the hearing and determination of the Petition, the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th 5thand 6 th respondent either by themselves or through their servants, employees or any person acting under their instructions are restrained from abducting, arresting, detaining, confining, assaulting, harassing, intimidating, threatening or in manner interfering with the person, liberty, safety or security of the Petitioner, John Thuo Ngugi.
b. Pending the hearing and determination of the Petition, the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th 5thand 6 th respondent either by themselves or through their servants, employees or any person acting under their instructions are restrained from causing, procuring or facilitating the committal, admission or detention of the Petitioner at the 7 th respondent’s facility or at any other rehabilitation, medical or other facility without his express consent.
14. Costs will abide the Petition.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 17 th September 2026
a. Spent
b. Spent
c. Spent
d. Spent
e. Spent
f. Spent
g. Spent
h. THAT the interim orders granted in prayers (b) to (g) above be and are hereby confirmed and do continue pending the hearing and determination of the Petition.
i. THAT an Order do issue directing the 8th Respondent to receive and act upon the Petitioner’s reports and to cause to be investigated the conduct of the police officers of Mwiki Police Station who participated in the Petitioner’s abduction and the attempted bribery of a witness.
j. THAT the costs of this Application be provided for
k. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant such other or other orders as it may deem just and expedient.
2. The application is supported by the Petitioner’s affidavit sworn on 23rd June 2026. He describes himself as a senior citizen aged 62 years. The 1st to 4th respondents are members of his family. He seeks conservatory orders restraining them from confining him at a rehabilitation centre and from interfering with his properties.
3. He alleges that the respondents, acting in concert with the local administration and police, have violated his constitutional rights under Articles 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 39, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 57. The respondents were served and appeared in Court but did not file any response.
4. Their silence, though not fatal, leaves the Applicant’s averments uncontroverted
5. The jurisprudence on conservatory orders is well settled and has found expression in numerous court decisions. In Munya v Kithinji & 2 others [2014] KESC 30 (KLR) at paragraph 86 stated the Court stated as follows: - [86] …… 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 course s.
6. In Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School vs. City County Director of Education & 2 Others [2015] eKLR , the Court summarized the principles for grant of conservatory orders as: -
(i) The need for the applicant to demonstrate an arguable prima facie case with a likelihood of success, and to show that in the absence of the conservatory orders, he is likely to suffer prejudice.
(ii) The second principle is whether the grant or denial of the conservatory relief will enhance the constitutional values and objects of a specific right or freedom in the Bill of Rights.
(iii) Thirdly, the Court should consider whether, if an interim conservatory order is not granted, the petition or its substratum will be rendered nugatory. (iv) Whether the public interest will be served or prejudiced by a decision to exercise discretion to grant or deny a conservatory order.
7. In Wilson Kaberia Nkunja vs. The Magistrate and Judges Vetting Board and Others Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No.154 of 2016 (2016) eKLR the Court summarized three main principles for consideration on whether to grant conservatory orders as follows: -
(a) An applicant must demonstrate that he has a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and that unless the court grants the conservatory order, there is a real danger that he will suffer prejudice as a result of the violation or threatened violation of the Constitution.
(b) Whether, if a conservatory order is not granted, the Petition alleging violation of, or threat of violation of rights will be rendered nugatory; and
(c) The public interest must be considered before grant of a conservatory order.
8. The Court in Damour Florian Emmeric v Director of Immigration Services [2022] KEHC 1556 (KLR) emphasised that these principles are not exhaustive. Depending on the nature of the matter, additional considerations may arise, including imminent danger to rights, proportionality, laches, and the presumption of constitutionality.
9. Applying the test to the case, I am inclined to grant some interim relief to the applicant. Based on the facts as set out in the affidavits of the Applicant and the affidavits in support sworn by Hannah Wambui Kimani and Paul Ouma Neko there is apparently a fall out between the applicant and some members of his family. They have resorted to using the local administration and the area police to intimidate the applicant and have proceeded to have the applicant detained at the facility of the 7 th respondent against his will. He has an arguable case
10. On the second principle, there is a real danger of continued harassment. He avers that the local chief continues to summon him, and that rent from his properties was collected during his detention. These allegations remain unchallenged.
11. The balance of convenience and public interest favour preservation of the Applicant’s rights pending determination of the Petition.
12. The Applicant seeks orders regarding the preservation of his assets and recovery of rental income, the proper forum for that in light of Article162(2) and 165 (5)(b) is the Environment and Land Court, I decline therefore to grant orders with regard to the same. Likewise, I note that the applicant is aggrieved by the inaction of the 8 th respondent with regards to reports he has made, however there are existing mechanisms where he should lodge his complaint. I am obliged to exercise restraint on the authority of Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume [1992] KECA 42 (KLR)
13. Based on the foregoing the following orders will issue;
a. Pending the hearing and determination of the Petition, the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th 5thand 6 th respondent either by themselves or through their servants, employees or any person acting under their instructions are restrained from abducting, arresting, detaining, confining, assaulting, harassing, intimidating, threatening or in manner interfering with the person, liberty, safety or security of the Petitioner, John Thuo Ngugi.
b. Pending the hearing and determination of the Petition, the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th 5thand 6 th respondent either by themselves or through their servants, employees or any person acting under their instructions are restrained from causing, procuring or facilitating the committal, admission or detention of the Petitioner at the 7 th respondent’s facility or at any other rehabilitation, medical or other facility without his express consent.
14. Costs will abide the Petition.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 17 th September 2026