I. Introduction
1. The Ruling before this Court is rather interesting – where both the Applicant and the 1 st Respondent, who were at some point intimate partners - were now vigorously seeking for restraining orders in order to preserve the same property.
2. Hence, before the Honourable Court for its determination are two Notices of Motion applications. One is dated 24 th November, 2025 filed by Leonardus Martinus Jozef Maria Ritzen the Plaintiff herein. It sought injunctive and access orders in respect of Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, 1002, and 1003. The said application was supported by the affidavit of Leonardus Martinus Jozef Maria Ritzen, the Plaintiff.
3. The second one is dated 21 st February, 2026 filed by Mary Wamboi Kinyanjui, the Defendant herein which sought for injunctive orders restraining the Plaintiff from dealing with Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, directing that rent be deposited into court, and restraining the Plaintiff from interfering with the Defendant's occupation and management of the suit property.
4. Upon service of the Notice of Motion Application, dated 24 th November, 2025 the Defendant filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Mary Wamboi Kinyanjui on 11 th December, 2025 opposing the application and a Further Replying Affidavit sworn still by May Wamboi Kinyanjui dated 10 th March, 2026. The Plaintiff responded with a Further Affidavit in response to the Defendant’s Further Replying Affidavit dated 10 th March 2026.
II. The Notice of Motion dated 24 th November, 2025 by the Plaintiff
5. The first application is dated 24 th November, 2025 was brought pursuant to the provision of Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Sections 33, 71, 76 and 80 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2020 and all other enabling provisions of the law.
6. Through the said application, the Plaintiff principally sought for the following orders:-
a) That pending hearing and determination of this suit, a temporary injunction do issue in the same terms.
b) That pending the hearing and determination of this application and/or the suit, this Honourable Court be pleased to order that the Plaintiff, together with his employees, agents, contractors, or caretakers, be granted immediate access to the properties known as Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, 1002, and 1003 for purposes of inspection, making necessary repairs, maintenance, management and preservation of the said properties.
c) That pending the hearing of this application and/or the suit, the Plaintiff be granted unrestricted access to and use of the residential house being Villa/House B situated on Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003, his machines stored there in and motor vehicle registration number KBE 444L Toyota Prado parked therein whenever he is in Kenya.
d) That the Defendant be restrained from denying, obstructing, threatening, intimidating, or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff, his contractors, caretakers, employees or agents in the exercise of the above access rights.
e) That the Land Registrar – Kwale be directed to enter restrictions on all three parcels pending determination of the suit.
f) That the Land Registrar be directed to produce certified copies of the white card for Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, 1002, and 1003 for use at trial.
g) That Costs of this application be in the cause.
7. The application was premised on the grounds, facts and testimony on the face of the application and further supported by the 24 Paragraphed Supporting affidavit of LEONARDUS MARTINUS JOZEF MARIA RITZEN the Plaintiff herein, where he averred as follows that:-
a) He was the Plaintiff/Applicant herein.
b) The Defendant/Respondent was his girlfriend and partner at the time of the official search, purchase and execution of the sale agreements but made no financial contribution to its acquisition.
c) He negotiated and entered in a separate written agreement for the purchase price of the suit properties with the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties during a meeting in Denmark around March, 2025 and paid a down payment of 20,000/= Euros.
d) He wired the balance of the purchase price along with monies for other purchaser items on or around 3 rd April, 2025 to the Defendant and told her to hold onto the funds until when he came to Kenya to see the suit properties and parties have signed the sale agreement.
e) The Defendant entered into a Sale Agreement with the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties on 14 th April, 2025 for the sale of Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 and1003 for a sum of Kenya Shillings Nineteen Thousand (Kshs.19,000,000/=) in her capacity as a representative purchaser.
f) He authorized the transfer of leasehold interest for the parcel of land under title number Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 in her name temporarily for convenience and Certificate of Lease issued on 23 rd April, 2025 but they later on had a fall out on or about June, 2025 and they were no longer in a romantic relationship.
g) From April, 2025 to date, he financed the full purchase of Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 and partially financed the purchase of Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003.
h) He retained all supporting documentation including sale agreements, payments, bank transfers, certificate of lease, official searches and correspondence.(Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 1” were the said documents)
i) The Defendant with his knowledge entered into a loan agreement with 2 nd Interested Party for a sum of Kenya Shillings Twenty One Million Nine Hundred Thousand (Kshs.21,900,000/=) in connection with the Sale of Kwale/Diani Beach Block 1002 and 1003 on 25 th April, 2025. (Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 2” was a copy of the Loan Agreement dated 25 th April, 2025)
j) Kwale/Beach Block/1711 was registered with his authority in the Defendant’s name while Kwale/Beach Block/1003 was registered in the Defendant’s name with out his authority. (Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 3” were copies of the Land Registry search and Certificates of Lease).
k) Around August, 2025 in a bid to protect his financial and proprietary interests in the suit properties, he approached the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties and informed them of his intention to proceed with the purchase of the suit properties under title number Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and 1003 and have the properties registered in his name.
l) The reason why the suit property under Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003 featured again as a sale property was because the purchase price in the Sale Agreement between the Defendant and the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties was for the 42-bedroom Apartments and one 1 -bedroom Penthouse erected on it and not the villa or main house - House B located therein.
m) The second Sale Agreement was between the himself and the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties dated 1 st August, 2025 was for House A and B located on the suit properties under title numbers Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and 1003 respectively for a total cost of a sum of Kenya Shillings Twenty Million Nie Hundred Thousand (Kshs.20, 900,000/=).
n) The 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties and himself entered into a sale agreement for Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and 1003 with the former executing the agreement on 1 st August, 2025 and the later executing on 21 st October, 2025.
o) The parcels Numbers Kwale/Beach Block/1002 remained registered in the names of the 2 nd and 3 rd interested parties as payment for the it was ongoing. (Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 4” was a copy of the Sale Agreement for Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003).
p) The Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) summoned the Defendant in June, 2025 following receipt of funds from the Plaintiff to her bank account in connection with the purchase of the suit properties and she recorded a statement with the agency in the month of July, 2025 that corroborated most of the averments he had made herein and the manners he went about making payments in connection with the purchase of the suit properties.(Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 5” was a copy of the ARA Summons and the Statements he recorded with the Agency)
q) The Defendant had since dismissed and evicted the Plaintiff’s employees/caretakers, changed locks to the residential house and taken permanent possession of the other houses situated on the parcel of land under title number Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 and 1003 which indicate she intends to deprive him access and use of the suit property.
r) He feared the Defendant may purchase and/or charge or dispose off the parcels to defeat his interests and he would prefer the Court direct the Land Registrar -Kwale to defaulted loan and she be given six months and for this reason I would prefer the Court direct the Land Registrar-Kwale to enter restrictions to restrict any further dealings pending the hearing and determination of this suit and produce certified copies of the white cards for use at trial. (Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 6” were copies correspondence between the Defendant and the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties' advocates)
s) The Defendant had also left some of the houses situated in Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 in a state of disrepair and his employees informed him that some of the houses had leaking roofs and faulty plumbing.
t) It was just and fair under the circumstances being the beneficial owner/financier and the Defendant holding the suit properties for him in a resulting trust that he be granted unrestricted access to the residential house situated on Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 whenever he was in Kenya.
u) Further to the unrestricted access for himself he requested for the Defendant to be restrained from denying, obstructing, threatening, intimidating, or otherwise interfering with him, his contractors, caretakers, employees or agents in the exercise of the above access rights.
v) No prejudice whatsoever shall be occasioned on the Defendant if interim injunction orders do issue restraining her or her agents and assigns from selling, transferring, charging, leasing or otherwise dealing with Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, 1002, and 1003 pending the hearing and determination of this instant application and suit.
w) It was just and necessary that this Honourable Court issues the said preservation orders.
x) What was deponed herein was true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief save where sources have been disclosed.
III. The responses by the Defendant
8. The Defendant, responded to the Application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 11 th December, 2025 by MARY WAMBOI KINYANJUI, wherein the Affiant averred as follows that:
i. She was the Defendant/Respondent in this suit and therefore competent to swear this Affidavit.
ii. She swore this Affidavit based on facts within her knowledge and whose sources she had disclosed, and regarding matters of law, based on advice received from her Advocates on record.
iii. She had read and had explained to her by her Advocates on record the Plaintiff/Applicant's Application dated 24 th November, 2025 and wish to respond as follows:-
iv. The Plaintiff/Applicant and her were previously engaged in a personal relationship where he voluntarily made financial contributions to her.
v. Any monies the Plaintiff may have spent during their past personal relationship were purely voluntary contributions and were not made pursuant to any agreement that the properties would be jointly owned or held in trust for him.
vi. Contrary to the allegations in the Plaintiff/Applicant's Application, the Plaintiff was not the beneficial owner, financier, or actual purchaser of the suit properties and she denied that she held the titles in trust for him in any manner whatsoever.
vii. The suit properties known as Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 and Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003 are registered in her name.
viii. She was the registered proprietor of the suit parcels of land and she annexed hereto copies of the current title documents and Marked as “MWK – 1” was the Certificate of Lease for KWALE/DIANI BEACH BLOCK/1711 and “MWK – 2” was the Transfer of Lease for KWALE/DIANI BEACH BLOCK/1003)
ix. The Plaintiff/Applicant had never been registered as proprietor of the suit properties and had no written agreement or registered instrument creating any legal or beneficial interest in his favour, as required under the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012.
x. Any transaction and registration involving the suit properties was done lawfully and with full compliance with the Land Registration Act. Annexed and Marked as “MWK – 3” was the Sale Agreement dated 14 th April, 2025)
xi. The Plaintiff/Applicant's alleged beneficial interest had unsupported by any registered instrument and his claims was based on informal arrangements that did not confer legal ownership.
xii. The Plaintiff/Applicant's access to the properties was revoked following the breakdown of our personal relationship, and his persistent insistence on access amounted to harassment and trespass.
xiii. She denied that she unlawfully dismissed or evicted the Plaintiff's caretakers or employees from the house on Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711; the workers on the properties had at all material times been her employees under her sole control and she was entitled to engage such staff as she deemed fit.
xiv. She denied ever constructing, threatening, intimidating or harassing the Plaintiff, his alleged caretakers, contractors or agents and state that any security measures or restrictions she had put in place were legitimate steps taken by a property owner for the protection of their properties.
xv. The motor vehicle registration number KBE 444L Toyota Prado was lawfully registered in her name and any past use by the Plaintiff/Applicant was with permission during the personal relationship, which permission had since been withdrawn.
xvi. The Plaintiff/Applicant's allegations of imminent disposal or charging of the properties and speculative, and no such transactions had been initiated.
xvii. The Plaintiff/Applicant had not demonstrated any irreparable harm or urgency warranting the orders sought, which was oppressive and solely intended to exert control over properties lawfully registered in her name.
xviii. The Plaintiff/Applicant had not established any basis for an interim injunction to restrain her from dealing with her own properties.
xix. The Plaintiff/Applicant's Application dated 24 th November, 2025 be dismissed with costs.
xx. What was deponed herein above was correct and true to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, save the sources quoted.
9. The Defendant further filed a Further Replying Affidavit where she deponed as follows that:-
i. She had been shown her Replying Affidavit filed by her previous advocate, sworn on 11 th December, 2025, prepared and filed by her said erstwhile advocate M/s. Matheka & Wandai and she had understood its contents and where necessary it had been explained to her. She saw that it never reflected the true facts as explained to her then advocate nor what she expected to inform Court.
ii. When she was served with summons and the application, she approached her advocate who she had earlier instructed to reply to a demand letter from the 3 rd and 4 th Interested Parties to deal with the matter or respond to it.
iii. She discussed the matter fully with Mr. Matheka who was a senior advocate in the Law firm of Messrs. Wandai & Matheka, who after listening to her carefully referred her to a young advocate by the name Brian. When she sat with Brian to explain to him the facts of the case, he did not seem to get the facts very well and within about thirty (30) minutes or so, he informed her that he had grasped the facts and that he was good to go in preparing documents for her to file.
iv. She was a little bit surprised that he was so fast in understanding all the facts but since he confirmed that he had understood, she left him to prepare.
v. On 9 th December, 2025 she received a draft affidavit from Brian asking her to comment about it. She then received a call from him and she raised her concerns about the facts in the affidavit, including the proposal that the Plaintiff had made to her for a settlement. She received the fallowing text from her said advocate Brian which said inter-earlier that:-
"Ordinarily what happens with replying affidavit is that we respond to grounds and claims raised in the other party's application. We don't necessarily argue out broader facts and particulars of the case... However, don't worry, I shall bring up the same with Mr. Matheka and seek guidance on the same. I will consult with Mr. Matheka in the morning."
vi. THAT From there she understood that the affidavit was not important, it did not matter what it stated because it was a matter of formality and that the true facts would be argued later. Not being an advocate, she had to agree with Counsel. Annexed hereto and marked as "MWK - 1" was a true screenshot of the conversation between her former advocate and herself.
vii. However, for reasons whose details she could not explain in this affidavit, she decided to appoint a new firm of advocate to take over the matter from the Law firm of Messrs, Wandai & Matheka Company Advocates, who proceeded to file a memorandum of appearance dated 15 th December, 2025, and upon her accessing Replying Affidavit on the CTS and Counsel, went through the affidavit and she realized that there were very many facts that were not correct and may not assist the court to reach a fair finding and accordingly instructed her new advocate to withdraw that affidavit and to file a fresh one, or alternative to file a further affidavit to correct the anomalies and hence this further Affidavit.
viii. The true and correct reply to the application dated 24 th November, 2025 was:
a. The application was based on falsehoods, half-truths and outright lies, in that the Plaintiff/Applicant has concealed the true facts and created false facts in order to achieve his goal.
b. From the onset she did admit that the Plaintiff financed the purchase of all the properties subject of the suit, which was Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003, and that at all times she handled the funds channeled to her by the Plaintiff/Applicant with utmost honesty and sincerity, therefore at no time did the Plaintiff/Applicant complain about her mishandling the funds or defrauding him.
c. At no time did she restrict or deny the Plaintiff entry to the properties subject of this suit as alleged at all, because at the time of going to court the Plaintiff was already living in the property and had full access, and she was away.
d. She left the suit premises because the Plaintiff joined hands with the staff, the 3 rd and 4 th interested parties and some foreign tenants, creating disturbance and danger to my safety.
e. The Plaintiff was not the beneficial owner of Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 since it was a gift given to her for her contribution to the Plaintiff despite not being monetary.
f. He did not transfer any property to her name without the Plaintiff's authority.
g. She had no intention of selling, charging or transferring any of the suit property, nor had she made any such intention known.
h. The Plaintiff's intention was to take away the gift given to her while they had a relationship, and to give it to his new girlfriend by the name Linet Daniel, with whom he was currently living in the suit property, and who caused their parting ways.
ix. At the commencement of her relationship with the Plaintiff, they became friends and in the year 2023 he traveled to Kenya, she hosted him in her house for the period he was on holiday. They continued dating as boyfriend and girlfriend and he fell for Kenya and of course with her. He promised to marry her and she introduced him to her parents and siblings, who had no objections.
x. At that time she was running a boutique business in Malindi, and living in her own rented house fully furnished.
xi. In the year 2024, the Plaintiff indicated to her that since they were getting married she should find a property to put up their matrimonial home, so that when they got married, they would not have to live in a rentals.
xii. In the year 2024, the Plaintiff never came for holiday in Kenya as he was trying to sell his property in the Netherlands so that he could buy property in Kenya where they would live together.
xiii. They were in touch all along, in December 2024 the Plaintiff told her he was ready to buy property in Kenya and therefore she could start scouting for one. His preference was between Malindi and South Coast. In early January and February, 2025, the Plaintiff informed her that he had seen property for sell on Jiji.com in South Coast. He then sent her a link to enable me trace the property, view it and give him her comment as to whether it was good for them to buy or not.
xiv. From Jiji.com she got the contact of the caretaker whom she contacted and he gave her the telephone number of the owners who happened to live in Denmark. The Plaintiff visited them and they agreed to sell the property.
xv. The Plaintiff informed her that he would send her money for the purchase of the property through her account but she should not spend till he came. When he came he was so impressed with her not spending his money as instructed, and he told her that she was going to be in charge of the dealings, including construction, renovation, letting and general management of the property on her and his behalf. He would start by giving her a gift to cement their relationship, and this gift was Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 while he would retain Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003 and later Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002.
xvi. As his fiancée she took everything very seriously when he personally ordered Kwale/Diani Beach Block/ 1711 transferred to her, not to hold in trust but absolute.
xvii. At the lawyer's office the Plaintiff instructed that plot Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 be registered in her name, and not as alleged.
xviii. Everything that she did was according to his instruction and above board, and up to now, all he said was that it was love for her that was no longer there but trust was.
xix. Knowing that she had personnel stake in the properties, one of them being hers, she put her best leg forward to carry out his instructions to the letter in his absence. Hе acknowledged severally that Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 was hers. And therefore, it was not true that the property was registered in her name as a trustee or for his benefit. Both him, her and even her family were aware of this arrangement.
xx. In the Plaintiff's absence she employed staff, to maintain all the properties. She supervised the construction and procurement of building and construction materials by paying for them at various hardwares. She paid the constructors and ensured security of the property, and rented out some of the suit properties, all on the Plaintiff's instructions, and there was never a single complaint in the manner in which she carried out the work. Basically, they were doing quite well and there was no dispute, and each of them knew that they were headed for marriage and making a family, thus living happy ever after, until one lady by the name Linet Daniel came into their lives when the Plaintiff met her at a spare parts shop in Ukunda.
xxi. In June the Plaintiff cheated on her with said lady. He later apologized and said he had let go, which she later on found out not to be true. In September when she was visiting her family in Malindi, she was informed by the caretaker that a lady came, walked into the compound in her absence, took pictures and video clip left. She asked the caretaker to describe the lady and she suspected it was the one called Linet Daniel who had previously cheated with the Plaintiff. When she inquired from the Plaintiff, he denied it but eventually he confirmed that it was her, because she was the one that he trusted. Out of this, they exchanged various WhatsApp messages, true screenshot copies were annexed hereto and marked as "MWK - 2". In some, he expressly admitted that Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 was hers.
xxii. In or about 2 nd September when the Plaintiff admitted that he had been sending Linet Daniel to inspect the compound, she told him that if she ever saw her in that compound she would call the police, and that was when he told her via the message that he would not entertain her anymore and that it was over between them.
xxiii. In October while she was visiting her family in Malindi, the Plaintiff came into the country without notice; he kept on entertaining Linet in their house. He instructed one of the workers by the name of Kennedy to cut the padlock to Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003. He then went back to Netherlands without informing her, although he had indicated that he was coming in December.
xxiv. She also discovered from tenants that the Plaintiff had told them not to pay rent to her and actually changed the Mpesa Paybill number. He went further to cancel her agreement with the tenants by canceling her name and entering his name as the landlord. He also changed her telephone number and entered his own. Annexed hereto and mark as "MWK - 3" was a true Photostat copy of the "Rental contract/management agreement" of one of the tenants.
xxv. At the time he visited Kenya secretly he broke the bedroom door and accessed the land documents in her drawer and took the Loan Agreement, copies of Sales Agreement and assorted receipts. However, he did not find the original title deed of her plot Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, as she had kept it separate from the other documents.
xxvi. She found out that the Plaintiff had turned the staff that had personally employed against her, and being unable to stay with people who were against her, she decided to suspend them. These were Augustine and Kenneth, her main caretakers. She did not know that they had been instructed to kick her out of the property, as they went on to call members of public and some tenants to throw her out collectively, which she resisted, and they threatened to burn down the house if she did not leave.
xxvii. Because of the threats she had to engage Crest Security, a security Company to protect her not to bar the Plaintiff from accessing the property.
xxviii. The 3 rd and 4 th Interested Parties, acting in cahoot with the Plaintiff, sent her a letter dated 10 th November, 2025 through their advocate demanding that she pays the loan of a sum of Kenya Shillings Twenty Two Million Five Fifty Seven Thousand (Kshs. 22,557,000/=) or she vacates the properties or they would commence proceeding against her. This was with their knowledge that although she entered into the loan agreement of purchasing Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003, the person who was to pay was the Plaintiff.
xxix. She was informed by the caretakers, which information she verily believe to be true, that the Plaintiff, the 3 rd and 4 th Interest Parties had agreed with the Plaintiff to change the loan to the Plaintiff's name and therefore the notice was a mere excuse to kick her out, which she understood they had already done. Annexed hereto marked as "MWK - 4" was a new agreement between them, a copy of which was sent to her by the Plaintiff and she did not object.
xxx. After the serious disagreement in September, the Plaintiff started to persuade her to give up Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 so that he could own all the properties himself in order that they did not live close to each other having broken up.
xxxi. The Plaintiff proposed to her to give up the house that he bought for her in exchange for something else so that they would not close, she offered that he buys her out with a sum of Kenya Shillings Fifteen Million (Kshs. 15,000,000/=), which he said was too high. He counter -offered that she takes all the household goods and the car after he fixed it, and to buy her a 3 - bedroom house in Malindi. He went ahead to send her a picture from Facebook of a 3 - bedroom house in Malindi.
xxxii. Eventually, she agreed that he fixes the car, she takes all the household goods, buys her another house in Malindi and that he gave her a sum of Kenya Shillings One Million Five Hundred Thousand (Kshs. 1,500,000/=) to start a business. He responded to that offer by saying that if she needed the said cash, then the price of the house must go down. Basically, he agreed that he buys her out (see Page 1 of the screenshots annexed hereto as "MWK - 2").
xxxiii. Subsequent to the discussions on settlements, in October 2025, the Plaintiff sent her a draft agreement, in which he had revised his proposal, he offered to pay her a sum of Kenya Shillings Five Million (Kshs. 5,000,000/=) payable within 6 months, and also that she takes the Toyota Land Cruiser and a sum of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred Thousand (Kshs. 200,000/=) to enable her repair it. He further said I would retain all movable household goods excluding all fixtures and fittings permanently built into the property. Annexed hereto was a true photostat copy of the draft agreement drawn by the Counsel currently on record for the Plaintiff, marked as "MWK - 5".
xxxiv. She rejected that offer for among other reasons, that in clause No.5 of the draft agreement, the Plaintiff was trying to restrict her from having any business in Malindi or anywhere else without telling her how she would survive during the period of the contract. And it was a further condition that if he found that she was carrying out any business or residing in Malindi, the contract would be nullified, which she found unconscionable
[...truncated]
1. The Ruling before this Court is rather interesting – where both the Applicant and the 1 st Respondent, who were at some point intimate partners - were now vigorously seeking for restraining orders in order to preserve the same property.
2. Hence, before the Honourable Court for its determination are two Notices of Motion applications. One is dated 24 th November, 2025 filed by Leonardus Martinus Jozef Maria Ritzen the Plaintiff herein. It sought injunctive and access orders in respect of Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, 1002, and 1003. The said application was supported by the affidavit of Leonardus Martinus Jozef Maria Ritzen, the Plaintiff.
3. The second one is dated 21 st February, 2026 filed by Mary Wamboi Kinyanjui, the Defendant herein which sought for injunctive orders restraining the Plaintiff from dealing with Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, directing that rent be deposited into court, and restraining the Plaintiff from interfering with the Defendant's occupation and management of the suit property.
4. Upon service of the Notice of Motion Application, dated 24 th November, 2025 the Defendant filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Mary Wamboi Kinyanjui on 11 th December, 2025 opposing the application and a Further Replying Affidavit sworn still by May Wamboi Kinyanjui dated 10 th March, 2026. The Plaintiff responded with a Further Affidavit in response to the Defendant’s Further Replying Affidavit dated 10 th March 2026.
II. The Notice of Motion dated 24 th November, 2025 by the Plaintiff
5. The first application is dated 24 th November, 2025 was brought pursuant to the provision of Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Sections 33, 71, 76 and 80 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2020 and all other enabling provisions of the law.
6. Through the said application, the Plaintiff principally sought for the following orders:-
a) That pending hearing and determination of this suit, a temporary injunction do issue in the same terms.
b) That pending the hearing and determination of this application and/or the suit, this Honourable Court be pleased to order that the Plaintiff, together with his employees, agents, contractors, or caretakers, be granted immediate access to the properties known as Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, 1002, and 1003 for purposes of inspection, making necessary repairs, maintenance, management and preservation of the said properties.
c) That pending the hearing of this application and/or the suit, the Plaintiff be granted unrestricted access to and use of the residential house being Villa/House B situated on Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003, his machines stored there in and motor vehicle registration number KBE 444L Toyota Prado parked therein whenever he is in Kenya.
d) That the Defendant be restrained from denying, obstructing, threatening, intimidating, or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff, his contractors, caretakers, employees or agents in the exercise of the above access rights.
e) That the Land Registrar – Kwale be directed to enter restrictions on all three parcels pending determination of the suit.
f) That the Land Registrar be directed to produce certified copies of the white card for Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, 1002, and 1003 for use at trial.
g) That Costs of this application be in the cause.
7. The application was premised on the grounds, facts and testimony on the face of the application and further supported by the 24 Paragraphed Supporting affidavit of LEONARDUS MARTINUS JOZEF MARIA RITZEN the Plaintiff herein, where he averred as follows that:-
a) He was the Plaintiff/Applicant herein.
b) The Defendant/Respondent was his girlfriend and partner at the time of the official search, purchase and execution of the sale agreements but made no financial contribution to its acquisition.
c) He negotiated and entered in a separate written agreement for the purchase price of the suit properties with the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties during a meeting in Denmark around March, 2025 and paid a down payment of 20,000/= Euros.
d) He wired the balance of the purchase price along with monies for other purchaser items on or around 3 rd April, 2025 to the Defendant and told her to hold onto the funds until when he came to Kenya to see the suit properties and parties have signed the sale agreement.
e) The Defendant entered into a Sale Agreement with the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties on 14 th April, 2025 for the sale of Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 and1003 for a sum of Kenya Shillings Nineteen Thousand (Kshs.19,000,000/=) in her capacity as a representative purchaser.
f) He authorized the transfer of leasehold interest for the parcel of land under title number Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 in her name temporarily for convenience and Certificate of Lease issued on 23 rd April, 2025 but they later on had a fall out on or about June, 2025 and they were no longer in a romantic relationship.
g) From April, 2025 to date, he financed the full purchase of Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 and partially financed the purchase of Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003.
h) He retained all supporting documentation including sale agreements, payments, bank transfers, certificate of lease, official searches and correspondence.(Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 1” were the said documents)
i) The Defendant with his knowledge entered into a loan agreement with 2 nd Interested Party for a sum of Kenya Shillings Twenty One Million Nine Hundred Thousand (Kshs.21,900,000/=) in connection with the Sale of Kwale/Diani Beach Block 1002 and 1003 on 25 th April, 2025. (Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 2” was a copy of the Loan Agreement dated 25 th April, 2025)
j) Kwale/Beach Block/1711 was registered with his authority in the Defendant’s name while Kwale/Beach Block/1003 was registered in the Defendant’s name with out his authority. (Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 3” were copies of the Land Registry search and Certificates of Lease).
k) Around August, 2025 in a bid to protect his financial and proprietary interests in the suit properties, he approached the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties and informed them of his intention to proceed with the purchase of the suit properties under title number Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and 1003 and have the properties registered in his name.
l) The reason why the suit property under Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003 featured again as a sale property was because the purchase price in the Sale Agreement between the Defendant and the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties was for the 42-bedroom Apartments and one 1 -bedroom Penthouse erected on it and not the villa or main house - House B located therein.
m) The second Sale Agreement was between the himself and the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties dated 1 st August, 2025 was for House A and B located on the suit properties under title numbers Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and 1003 respectively for a total cost of a sum of Kenya Shillings Twenty Million Nie Hundred Thousand (Kshs.20, 900,000/=).
n) The 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties and himself entered into a sale agreement for Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and 1003 with the former executing the agreement on 1 st August, 2025 and the later executing on 21 st October, 2025.
o) The parcels Numbers Kwale/Beach Block/1002 remained registered in the names of the 2 nd and 3 rd interested parties as payment for the it was ongoing. (Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 4” was a copy of the Sale Agreement for Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003).
p) The Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) summoned the Defendant in June, 2025 following receipt of funds from the Plaintiff to her bank account in connection with the purchase of the suit properties and she recorded a statement with the agency in the month of July, 2025 that corroborated most of the averments he had made herein and the manners he went about making payments in connection with the purchase of the suit properties.(Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 5” was a copy of the ARA Summons and the Statements he recorded with the Agency)
q) The Defendant had since dismissed and evicted the Plaintiff’s employees/caretakers, changed locks to the residential house and taken permanent possession of the other houses situated on the parcel of land under title number Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 and 1003 which indicate she intends to deprive him access and use of the suit property.
r) He feared the Defendant may purchase and/or charge or dispose off the parcels to defeat his interests and he would prefer the Court direct the Land Registrar -Kwale to defaulted loan and she be given six months and for this reason I would prefer the Court direct the Land Registrar-Kwale to enter restrictions to restrict any further dealings pending the hearing and determination of this suit and produce certified copies of the white cards for use at trial. (Annexed and marked as “LMJMR – 6” were copies correspondence between the Defendant and the 2 nd and 3 rd Interested Parties' advocates)
s) The Defendant had also left some of the houses situated in Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 in a state of disrepair and his employees informed him that some of the houses had leaking roofs and faulty plumbing.
t) It was just and fair under the circumstances being the beneficial owner/financier and the Defendant holding the suit properties for him in a resulting trust that he be granted unrestricted access to the residential house situated on Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 whenever he was in Kenya.
u) Further to the unrestricted access for himself he requested for the Defendant to be restrained from denying, obstructing, threatening, intimidating, or otherwise interfering with him, his contractors, caretakers, employees or agents in the exercise of the above access rights.
v) No prejudice whatsoever shall be occasioned on the Defendant if interim injunction orders do issue restraining her or her agents and assigns from selling, transferring, charging, leasing or otherwise dealing with Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, 1002, and 1003 pending the hearing and determination of this instant application and suit.
w) It was just and necessary that this Honourable Court issues the said preservation orders.
x) What was deponed herein was true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief save where sources have been disclosed.
III. The responses by the Defendant
8. The Defendant, responded to the Application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 11 th December, 2025 by MARY WAMBOI KINYANJUI, wherein the Affiant averred as follows that:
i. She was the Defendant/Respondent in this suit and therefore competent to swear this Affidavit.
ii. She swore this Affidavit based on facts within her knowledge and whose sources she had disclosed, and regarding matters of law, based on advice received from her Advocates on record.
iii. She had read and had explained to her by her Advocates on record the Plaintiff/Applicant's Application dated 24 th November, 2025 and wish to respond as follows:-
iv. The Plaintiff/Applicant and her were previously engaged in a personal relationship where he voluntarily made financial contributions to her.
v. Any monies the Plaintiff may have spent during their past personal relationship were purely voluntary contributions and were not made pursuant to any agreement that the properties would be jointly owned or held in trust for him.
vi. Contrary to the allegations in the Plaintiff/Applicant's Application, the Plaintiff was not the beneficial owner, financier, or actual purchaser of the suit properties and she denied that she held the titles in trust for him in any manner whatsoever.
vii. The suit properties known as Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 and Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003 are registered in her name.
viii. She was the registered proprietor of the suit parcels of land and she annexed hereto copies of the current title documents and Marked as “MWK – 1” was the Certificate of Lease for KWALE/DIANI BEACH BLOCK/1711 and “MWK – 2” was the Transfer of Lease for KWALE/DIANI BEACH BLOCK/1003)
ix. The Plaintiff/Applicant had never been registered as proprietor of the suit properties and had no written agreement or registered instrument creating any legal or beneficial interest in his favour, as required under the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012.
x. Any transaction and registration involving the suit properties was done lawfully and with full compliance with the Land Registration Act. Annexed and Marked as “MWK – 3” was the Sale Agreement dated 14 th April, 2025)
xi. The Plaintiff/Applicant's alleged beneficial interest had unsupported by any registered instrument and his claims was based on informal arrangements that did not confer legal ownership.
xii. The Plaintiff/Applicant's access to the properties was revoked following the breakdown of our personal relationship, and his persistent insistence on access amounted to harassment and trespass.
xiii. She denied that she unlawfully dismissed or evicted the Plaintiff's caretakers or employees from the house on Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711; the workers on the properties had at all material times been her employees under her sole control and she was entitled to engage such staff as she deemed fit.
xiv. She denied ever constructing, threatening, intimidating or harassing the Plaintiff, his alleged caretakers, contractors or agents and state that any security measures or restrictions she had put in place were legitimate steps taken by a property owner for the protection of their properties.
xv. The motor vehicle registration number KBE 444L Toyota Prado was lawfully registered in her name and any past use by the Plaintiff/Applicant was with permission during the personal relationship, which permission had since been withdrawn.
xvi. The Plaintiff/Applicant's allegations of imminent disposal or charging of the properties and speculative, and no such transactions had been initiated.
xvii. The Plaintiff/Applicant had not demonstrated any irreparable harm or urgency warranting the orders sought, which was oppressive and solely intended to exert control over properties lawfully registered in her name.
xviii. The Plaintiff/Applicant had not established any basis for an interim injunction to restrain her from dealing with her own properties.
xix. The Plaintiff/Applicant's Application dated 24 th November, 2025 be dismissed with costs.
xx. What was deponed herein above was correct and true to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, save the sources quoted.
9. The Defendant further filed a Further Replying Affidavit where she deponed as follows that:-
i. She had been shown her Replying Affidavit filed by her previous advocate, sworn on 11 th December, 2025, prepared and filed by her said erstwhile advocate M/s. Matheka & Wandai and she had understood its contents and where necessary it had been explained to her. She saw that it never reflected the true facts as explained to her then advocate nor what she expected to inform Court.
ii. When she was served with summons and the application, she approached her advocate who she had earlier instructed to reply to a demand letter from the 3 rd and 4 th Interested Parties to deal with the matter or respond to it.
iii. She discussed the matter fully with Mr. Matheka who was a senior advocate in the Law firm of Messrs. Wandai & Matheka, who after listening to her carefully referred her to a young advocate by the name Brian. When she sat with Brian to explain to him the facts of the case, he did not seem to get the facts very well and within about thirty (30) minutes or so, he informed her that he had grasped the facts and that he was good to go in preparing documents for her to file.
iv. She was a little bit surprised that he was so fast in understanding all the facts but since he confirmed that he had understood, she left him to prepare.
v. On 9 th December, 2025 she received a draft affidavit from Brian asking her to comment about it. She then received a call from him and she raised her concerns about the facts in the affidavit, including the proposal that the Plaintiff had made to her for a settlement. She received the fallowing text from her said advocate Brian which said inter-earlier that:-
"Ordinarily what happens with replying affidavit is that we respond to grounds and claims raised in the other party's application. We don't necessarily argue out broader facts and particulars of the case... However, don't worry, I shall bring up the same with Mr. Matheka and seek guidance on the same. I will consult with Mr. Matheka in the morning."
vi. THAT From there she understood that the affidavit was not important, it did not matter what it stated because it was a matter of formality and that the true facts would be argued later. Not being an advocate, she had to agree with Counsel. Annexed hereto and marked as "MWK - 1" was a true screenshot of the conversation between her former advocate and herself.
vii. However, for reasons whose details she could not explain in this affidavit, she decided to appoint a new firm of advocate to take over the matter from the Law firm of Messrs, Wandai & Matheka Company Advocates, who proceeded to file a memorandum of appearance dated 15 th December, 2025, and upon her accessing Replying Affidavit on the CTS and Counsel, went through the affidavit and she realized that there were very many facts that were not correct and may not assist the court to reach a fair finding and accordingly instructed her new advocate to withdraw that affidavit and to file a fresh one, or alternative to file a further affidavit to correct the anomalies and hence this further Affidavit.
viii. The true and correct reply to the application dated 24 th November, 2025 was:
a. The application was based on falsehoods, half-truths and outright lies, in that the Plaintiff/Applicant has concealed the true facts and created false facts in order to achieve his goal.
b. From the onset she did admit that the Plaintiff financed the purchase of all the properties subject of the suit, which was Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003, and that at all times she handled the funds channeled to her by the Plaintiff/Applicant with utmost honesty and sincerity, therefore at no time did the Plaintiff/Applicant complain about her mishandling the funds or defrauding him.
c. At no time did she restrict or deny the Plaintiff entry to the properties subject of this suit as alleged at all, because at the time of going to court the Plaintiff was already living in the property and had full access, and she was away.
d. She left the suit premises because the Plaintiff joined hands with the staff, the 3 rd and 4 th interested parties and some foreign tenants, creating disturbance and danger to my safety.
e. The Plaintiff was not the beneficial owner of Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 since it was a gift given to her for her contribution to the Plaintiff despite not being monetary.
f. He did not transfer any property to her name without the Plaintiff's authority.
g. She had no intention of selling, charging or transferring any of the suit property, nor had she made any such intention known.
h. The Plaintiff's intention was to take away the gift given to her while they had a relationship, and to give it to his new girlfriend by the name Linet Daniel, with whom he was currently living in the suit property, and who caused their parting ways.
ix. At the commencement of her relationship with the Plaintiff, they became friends and in the year 2023 he traveled to Kenya, she hosted him in her house for the period he was on holiday. They continued dating as boyfriend and girlfriend and he fell for Kenya and of course with her. He promised to marry her and she introduced him to her parents and siblings, who had no objections.
x. At that time she was running a boutique business in Malindi, and living in her own rented house fully furnished.
xi. In the year 2024, the Plaintiff indicated to her that since they were getting married she should find a property to put up their matrimonial home, so that when they got married, they would not have to live in a rentals.
xii. In the year 2024, the Plaintiff never came for holiday in Kenya as he was trying to sell his property in the Netherlands so that he could buy property in Kenya where they would live together.
xiii. They were in touch all along, in December 2024 the Plaintiff told her he was ready to buy property in Kenya and therefore she could start scouting for one. His preference was between Malindi and South Coast. In early January and February, 2025, the Plaintiff informed her that he had seen property for sell on Jiji.com in South Coast. He then sent her a link to enable me trace the property, view it and give him her comment as to whether it was good for them to buy or not.
xiv. From Jiji.com she got the contact of the caretaker whom she contacted and he gave her the telephone number of the owners who happened to live in Denmark. The Plaintiff visited them and they agreed to sell the property.
xv. The Plaintiff informed her that he would send her money for the purchase of the property through her account but she should not spend till he came. When he came he was so impressed with her not spending his money as instructed, and he told her that she was going to be in charge of the dealings, including construction, renovation, letting and general management of the property on her and his behalf. He would start by giving her a gift to cement their relationship, and this gift was Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 while he would retain Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003 and later Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002.
xvi. As his fiancée she took everything very seriously when he personally ordered Kwale/Diani Beach Block/ 1711 transferred to her, not to hold in trust but absolute.
xvii. At the lawyer's office the Plaintiff instructed that plot Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 be registered in her name, and not as alleged.
xviii. Everything that she did was according to his instruction and above board, and up to now, all he said was that it was love for her that was no longer there but trust was.
xix. Knowing that she had personnel stake in the properties, one of them being hers, she put her best leg forward to carry out his instructions to the letter in his absence. Hе acknowledged severally that Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 was hers. And therefore, it was not true that the property was registered in her name as a trustee or for his benefit. Both him, her and even her family were aware of this arrangement.
xx. In the Plaintiff's absence she employed staff, to maintain all the properties. She supervised the construction and procurement of building and construction materials by paying for them at various hardwares. She paid the constructors and ensured security of the property, and rented out some of the suit properties, all on the Plaintiff's instructions, and there was never a single complaint in the manner in which she carried out the work. Basically, they were doing quite well and there was no dispute, and each of them knew that they were headed for marriage and making a family, thus living happy ever after, until one lady by the name Linet Daniel came into their lives when the Plaintiff met her at a spare parts shop in Ukunda.
xxi. In June the Plaintiff cheated on her with said lady. He later apologized and said he had let go, which she later on found out not to be true. In September when she was visiting her family in Malindi, she was informed by the caretaker that a lady came, walked into the compound in her absence, took pictures and video clip left. She asked the caretaker to describe the lady and she suspected it was the one called Linet Daniel who had previously cheated with the Plaintiff. When she inquired from the Plaintiff, he denied it but eventually he confirmed that it was her, because she was the one that he trusted. Out of this, they exchanged various WhatsApp messages, true screenshot copies were annexed hereto and marked as "MWK - 2". In some, he expressly admitted that Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 was hers.
xxii. In or about 2 nd September when the Plaintiff admitted that he had been sending Linet Daniel to inspect the compound, she told him that if she ever saw her in that compound she would call the police, and that was when he told her via the message that he would not entertain her anymore and that it was over between them.
xxiii. In October while she was visiting her family in Malindi, the Plaintiff came into the country without notice; he kept on entertaining Linet in their house. He instructed one of the workers by the name of Kennedy to cut the padlock to Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003. He then went back to Netherlands without informing her, although he had indicated that he was coming in December.
xxiv. She also discovered from tenants that the Plaintiff had told them not to pay rent to her and actually changed the Mpesa Paybill number. He went further to cancel her agreement with the tenants by canceling her name and entering his name as the landlord. He also changed her telephone number and entered his own. Annexed hereto and mark as "MWK - 3" was a true Photostat copy of the "Rental contract/management agreement" of one of the tenants.
xxv. At the time he visited Kenya secretly he broke the bedroom door and accessed the land documents in her drawer and took the Loan Agreement, copies of Sales Agreement and assorted receipts. However, he did not find the original title deed of her plot Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711, as she had kept it separate from the other documents.
xxvi. She found out that the Plaintiff had turned the staff that had personally employed against her, and being unable to stay with people who were against her, she decided to suspend them. These were Augustine and Kenneth, her main caretakers. She did not know that they had been instructed to kick her out of the property, as they went on to call members of public and some tenants to throw her out collectively, which she resisted, and they threatened to burn down the house if she did not leave.
xxvii. Because of the threats she had to engage Crest Security, a security Company to protect her not to bar the Plaintiff from accessing the property.
xxviii. The 3 rd and 4 th Interested Parties, acting in cahoot with the Plaintiff, sent her a letter dated 10 th November, 2025 through their advocate demanding that she pays the loan of a sum of Kenya Shillings Twenty Two Million Five Fifty Seven Thousand (Kshs. 22,557,000/=) or she vacates the properties or they would commence proceeding against her. This was with their knowledge that although she entered into the loan agreement of purchasing Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1002 and Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1003, the person who was to pay was the Plaintiff.
xxix. She was informed by the caretakers, which information she verily believe to be true, that the Plaintiff, the 3 rd and 4 th Interest Parties had agreed with the Plaintiff to change the loan to the Plaintiff's name and therefore the notice was a mere excuse to kick her out, which she understood they had already done. Annexed hereto marked as "MWK - 4" was a new agreement between them, a copy of which was sent to her by the Plaintiff and she did not object.
xxx. After the serious disagreement in September, the Plaintiff started to persuade her to give up Kwale/Diani Beach Block/1711 so that he could own all the properties himself in order that they did not live close to each other having broken up.
xxxi. The Plaintiff proposed to her to give up the house that he bought for her in exchange for something else so that they would not close, she offered that he buys her out with a sum of Kenya Shillings Fifteen Million (Kshs. 15,000,000/=), which he said was too high. He counter -offered that she takes all the household goods and the car after he fixed it, and to buy her a 3 - bedroom house in Malindi. He went ahead to send her a picture from Facebook of a 3 - bedroom house in Malindi.
xxxii. Eventually, she agreed that he fixes the car, she takes all the household goods, buys her another house in Malindi and that he gave her a sum of Kenya Shillings One Million Five Hundred Thousand (Kshs. 1,500,000/=) to start a business. He responded to that offer by saying that if she needed the said cash, then the price of the house must go down. Basically, he agreed that he buys her out (see Page 1 of the screenshots annexed hereto as "MWK - 2").
xxxiii. Subsequent to the discussions on settlements, in October 2025, the Plaintiff sent her a draft agreement, in which he had revised his proposal, he offered to pay her a sum of Kenya Shillings Five Million (Kshs. 5,000,000/=) payable within 6 months, and also that she takes the Toyota Land Cruiser and a sum of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred Thousand (Kshs. 200,000/=) to enable her repair it. He further said I would retain all movable household goods excluding all fixtures and fittings permanently built into the property. Annexed hereto was a true photostat copy of the draft agreement drawn by the Counsel currently on record for the Plaintiff, marked as "MWK - 5".
xxxiv. She rejected that offer for among other reasons, that in clause No.5 of the draft agreement, the Plaintiff was trying to restrict her from having any business in Malindi or anywhere else without telling her how she would survive during the period of the contract. And it was a further condition that if he found that she was carrying out any business or residing in Malindi, the contract would be nullified, which she found unconscionable
[...truncated]