Introduction
1. By a notice of motion application dated 29 th July, 2026 filed under certificate of urgency, the Petitioner/applicant sought the following orders: -
A. Pending the hearing and determination of this Application Conservatory orders be issued to restrain the Senate through its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources from summoning the Petitioner to appear before it to answer questions in regards to the Protection of Property Rights and Security of Residents of Two Rivers Cresent Estate, Ruiru Kiambu County;
B. Pending the hearing and determination of this Application Conservatory orders be issued to restrain the Senate through its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources from deliberating and inquiring about the Protection of Property Rights and Security of Residents of Two Rivers Cresent Estate, Ruiru Kiambu County;
C. Pending the hearing and determination of the Petition filed herein Conservatory orders be issued to restrain the Senate through its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources from summoning the Petitioner to appear before it to answer questions in regards to the Protection of Property Rights and Security of Residents of Two Rivers Cresent Estate, Ruiru Kiambu County;
D. Pending the hearing and determination of the Petition filed herein Conservatory orders be issued to restrain the Senate through its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources from deliberating and inquiring about the Protection of Property Rights and Security of Residents of Two Rivers Cresent Estate, Ruiru Kiambu County;
E. Costs of this Application be provided for.
Petitioner’s Case
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Willy Kihara Njoki Kanyotu sworn on even date and the grounds on the face of the application.
3. He asserts that he is a son and beneficiary of the Estate of the late James Kanyotu. He relies on a Partial Confirmed Grant dated 20 July 2020 issued in High Court Succession Cause No. 1239 of 2008, Estate of James Kanyotu , as evidence of that position.
4. The Petitioner states that the deceased, James Kanyotu , was the majority shareholder of Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited , which is the registered owner of parcels L.R. Nos. 11261/11, 11261/24, 11261/38, 11261/39, 11261/48 and 11261/51 , situated at Two Rivers Crescent Estate, Ruiru, Kiambu County.
5. He states that Margaret Nyakinyua Murigu , an administratrix of the Estate of James Kanyotu, challenged the alleged sale and purchase of the above parcels of land, among others, in High Court Succession Cause No. 1239 of 2008 through an application dated 29 th January 2025, which was pending hearing on 1 st October 2026.
6. According to the Petitioner, residents of Two Rivers Crescent Estate and alleged purchasers of the parcels have also individually and jointly instituted suits against him concerning the disputed ownership of the parcels. He has listed the following pending proceedings:
i. ELCLC/E088/2024 – Patrick Maina Ndungu v State Law and Office of the Land Registrar & 2 Others , scheduled for hearing on 9 February 2027 at Thika ELC;
ii. ELCLC/E002/2025 – Johnson Maina Muigai and Peter Kinganga Mutugu & 1 Other v Willy Kihara Njoki , scheduled for hearing on 21 September 2026 at Thika ELC;
iii. ELCLC/E054/2025 – Hezekiah Kariuki Mwangi v Willy Kihara Kanyotu , pending a ruling on 15 October 2026 before the Thika ELC;
iv. ELCLC/E255/2025 – Joseph Muturi Mukia v Willy Kihara Njoki and Hezekiah Kariuki Mwangi , pending a ruling on 29 September 2026 before the Thika ELC;
v. ELCLC/E270/2025 – Beyond Twenty Fourteen Investments Limited v Willy Kihara Njoki , pending a ruling on 1 October 2026 before the Thika ELC; and
vi. ELCLC/E326/2026 – Elilas Ngure Muritihi & 42 Others v Kangaita Coffee Estate Ltd & 8 Others .
7. The Petitioner states that, by a letter dated 21 st July 2026 , the Respondents summoned him, together with other members of James Kanyotu's family and residents of Two Rivers Crescent Estate, to deliberate upon the legal status and ownership of the parcels of land, the legal status and capacity of himself in relation to the Estate of James Kanyotu, and the status and integrity of the ownership records relating to the parcels. Through his advocate, the Petitioner responded by a letter dated 27 July 2026 , informing the Respondents that they had no jurisdiction to deliberate and inquire into the matters, because the disputes were already before courts of competent jurisdiction. He contended that proceeding with the inquiry would amount to sub judice, contrary to section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and Standing Order 92 of the Senate Standing Orders.
8. Despite that objection, the Petitioner's counsel appeared before the Respondents on 28 July 2026 and informed the members of the Respondents of the status of the pending suits. According to the Petitioner, the Respondents nevertheless proceeded to deliberate upon the issues and subsequently directed his counsel to avail the Petitioner before them on 6 August 2026 to answer questions concerning the disputed ownership of the parcels at Two Rivers Crescent Estate.
9. The Petitioner maintains that the Respondents have no jurisdiction to deliberate and inquire into the ownership of private property, nor jurisdiction over succession and inheritance matters. He further contends that the ownership dispute is already before several courts of competent jurisdiction and that the Respondents are therefore usurping the jurisdiction of the courts by discussing and deliberating upon those issues. He argues that this would offend the sub judice rule and the Respondents' own Standing Order No. 92.
10. The Petitioner further deposes that the Respondents' conduct amounts to an illegality, from which the Court should protect him. He contends that his right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution will be gravely violated if the application is not heard and the orders sought are not granted.
11. Finally, he states that unless the Court intervenes, the Petition will be rendered nugatory because the intended proceedings by the Respondents scheduled for 6 August 2026 will proceed. He therefore seeks the Court's intervention through the conservatory orders contained in the Notice of Motion.
The Respondents’ case
12. The 4 th Respondent filed grounds of opposition to oppose the Petitioner’s Notice of Motion dated 29 July 2026 principally on the question of jurisdiction . Their position is as follows:
13. The Respondents contend that the substance of the dispute concerns ownership and title to Two Rivers Crescent Estate in Ruiru, Kiambu County , which was excised from the Estate of the late James Kanyottu. They argue that, pursuant to Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution , jurisdiction over questions concerning ownership of land lies with the Environment and Land Court (ELC) .
14. With respect to the 3 rd Respondent, the Senate Standing Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources , the Respondents acknowledge that it has powers equivalent to those of the High Court but contend that it does not have the exclusive mandate to determine questions of ownership and title to land.
15. They rely on Standing Order No. 228(3) of the Senate Standing Orders , which empowers the 3rd Respondent to consider matters relating to land and settlement, environment, forestry, wildlife, mining and water resources management and development. However, they maintain that this mandate does not confer upon the Committee the exclusive power to determine land ownership and title, which falls within the jurisdiction of the ELC under sections 13(1) and (2) of the Environment and Land Court Act .
16. The Respondents further contend that the ELC has wide powers under section 13(5) of the Environment and Land Court Act to make appropriate orders and grant relief capable of adequately addressing the concerns raised by the Senate Committee. Consequently, the mandate of the Senate Committee cannot override that of the ELC, which is a specialized court constitutionally established to deal specifically with questions relating to ownership and title to land.
17. Finally, the Respondents contend that if the High Court accedes to the Senate Committee’s request, it would be required to interrogate the underlying questions of ownership and title to land. Their position is that the High Court itself lacks the requisite jurisdiction and mandate to determine those questions.
18. The 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents also filed their grounds of opposition oppose the Petitioner’s application for conservatory orders on the following grounds:
19. Threshold for conservatory orders, the Respondents contend that the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the principles governing the grant of conservatory orders as set out in Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014] eKLR , namely: establishing a prima facie case with a likelihood of success; demonstrating likely prejudice in the absence of the orders; showing that the Petition or its substratum would otherwise be rendered nugatory; and establishing that the orders are in the public interest.
20. That the Petitioner has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. The Respondents state that the Petitioner was invited to appear before the Committee and respond to the allegations against him. Instead of taking that opportunity, he approached the Court seeking to prevent the Committee from hearing his representations.
21. The Committee's inquiry extends beyond the private land dispute: They maintain that the Committee is considering broader public and oversight matters, including the integrity of public land records, measures by security agencies to protect affected residents, and measures by the Ministry responsible for land to protect innocent purchasers and prevent fraudulent claims, loss of land records and unlawful dispossession.
22. Public interest: The Respondents contend that it would not be in the public interest to restrain a parliamentary committee from considering a petition concerning the rights, safety, security and wellbeing of citizens who have petitioned Parliament for redress pursuant to Articles 37 and 119 of the Constitution . They further rely on Article 94(4) , which requires Parliament to protect the Constitution and promote democratic governance.
23. Constitutional mandate of parliamentary committees: The Respondents rely on Article 124 of the Constitution, arguing that parliamentary committees are constitutionally established and discharge their functions in accordance with the relevant Standing Orders.
24. Power to summon witnesses: Under Article 125 of the Constitution , Parliament and its committees may summon persons to give evidence or provide information and possess powers equivalent to those of the High Court in relation to attendance of witnesses, examination of witnesses and production of documents. The Respondents also rely on section 18 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act as conferring corresponding powers to invite or summon witnesses.
25. They additionally rely on Articles 93 and 96 of the Constitution concerning the establishment of Parliament and the constitutional role of the Senate, including its representation and protection of the interests of counties and county governments.
26. Right to petition Parliament : The Respondents contend that Article 119 , read together with Article 37 , entitles persons to petition Parliament on matters falling within its authority. Consequently, the affected residents were entitled to approach Parliament for redress.
27. Parliament is not precluded from considering land matters: The Respondents reject the Petitioner's contention that Parliament cannot consider the matter merely because it concerns land. They rely on Speaker of the National Assembly v Mombasa Cement Limited & 4 Others (Civil Appeal 100 of 2019 & E021 of 2020 (Consolidated)) [2023] KECA 33 (KLR) for the proposition that Parliament, as an elected Assembly, has a duty to investigate, deliberate, inform and make recommendations on important public issues, and may collect information and call for evidence in carrying out its oversight responsibilities.
28. On that basis, the Respondents maintain that the Petitioner has not established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and that granting the conservatory orders would improperly suspend Parliament's constitutional powers and prevent it from performing its representative and oversight functions.
29. They argue that the Petitioner has been afforded an opportunity to be heard before the Committee. If dissatisfied with the Committee's eventual actions or decision, he may approach the Court thereafter. Accordingly, he has not demonstrated what prejudice he would suffer if the conservatory orders are refused.
30. Although the Respondents acknowledge that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution to review the Senate's actions and determine whether Parliament acted within constitutional limits, they contend that such jurisdiction should be invoked after Parliament has completed its process and rendered its decision.
31. Finally, they argue that allowing the parliamentary process to proceed will not render the Petition nugatory . If the Petition subsequently succeeds, the Court retains jurisdiction to issue appropriate relief. They therefore seek dismissal of the Notice of Motion with costs to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
The 1 st - 3 rd Respondents’ Application
32. The Respondents also filed an application dated 20 th August ,2026 in which they seek the following prayers:
1) THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application inter partes, an order of stay be and is hereby granted in respect of the conservatory orders issued by this Court on 3 rd August, 2026 in the following terms: “8. THAT pending hearing and determination of the application, the Senate summons to the petitioner dated 29th July 2026 summoning the petitioner to appear before its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources on 6th August 2026 or any other date is hereby stayed and/or suspended.”
2) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to discharge, vacate, vary and/ or set aside its orders of 3rd August, 2026 issued in the following terms: “8.THAT pending hearing and determination of the application, the Senate summons to the petitioner dated 29th July 2026 summoning the petitioner to appear before its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources on 6th August 2026 or any other date is hereby stayed and/or suspended.”
3) THAT costs of this Application be borne by the Petitioner.
33. The Supporting Affidavit is sworn by Mohamed Ali, the Deputy Clerk of the Senate, on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents/Applicants, in support of their application to set aside the ex parte conservatory orders issued on 3 August 2026.
34. He deposes that the 3rd Respondent is a standing committee established under Standing Order 228(3) and mandated to consider matters relating to lands and settlement, environment, forestry, wildlife, mining and water resource management and development. On 4 June 2026, the Senator for Kiambu County, Sen. Karungo Thang’wa, made a Statement pursuant to Standing Order 53(1) concerning the protection of property rights and security of residents of Two Rivers Crescent Estate, Ruiru, Kiambu County , which was committed to the Committee.
35. The Statement required the Committee to inquire into and report on several matters, including the legal status of the parcels and integrity of ownership records, the Ministry responsible for lands' response to the asserted ownership, action taken by the DCI following complaints of threats, intimidation, destruction of property and attempted unlawful eviction, measures to secure residents, and measures to protect innocent purchasers and prevent similar land disputes, fraudulent claims, loss of records and unlawful dispossession.
36. The deponent states that under Standing Order 56 , the Committee Chairperson is required to report to the Senate on the status and progress of the inquiry, with that duty falling within the current Session of the Senate, which terminates on the first Thursday of December 2026.
37. In the course of the inquiry, the Committee sought information from relevant persons. By a letter dated 21 July 2026, the Petitioner, together with Jane Gathoni Kanyotu, a Director of Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited, was invited to attend a meeting on 28 July 2026 to provide information.
38. The Petitioner did not personally provide the requested information but responded through his advocates by a letter dated 27 July 2026 , objecting to the meeting. His advocate attended the meeting of 28 July 2026 and was heard on the objection. According to the deponent, the Committee considered that the Petitioner's attendance was necessary and invited him, together with his advocate, to attend its meeting of 6 August 2026, at which residents and other stakeholders were also expected to attend.
39. The Petitioner subsequently obtained conservatory orders barring his attendance before the Committee on 6 August 2026 or any other date . The deponent states that this prevents the Committee from obtaining information from the Petitioner which it considers necessary to conclude its inquiry and answer the Statement.
40. The Respondents rely on Rule 25 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules (Mutunga Rules) as empowering the Court to set aside, vary or discharge orders. They additionally invoke section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, contending that the Court has power to review its own orders on grounds including discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason.
41. A central contention of the affidavit is that the Petitioner allegedly misled the Court by stating that he had been summoned by the Senate Committee . According to the Respondents, he had merely been invited to respond to allegations against him in a matter brought to the Senate and referred to the Committee for investigation and reporting. They therefore maintain that there were no summons against the Petitioner and that his attendance was intended to afford him an opportunity to respond to adverse allegations and secure his right to a fair hearing.
42. The deponent contends that, by granting the ex parte conservatory orders, the Court restrained the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents from performing their constitutional functions and, in effect, condemned them unheard on the basis of what the Respondents characterize as erroneous assertions concerning the alleged summons.
43. The Respondents further contend that the Petitioner obtained the ex parte orders through non-disclosure of material facts. In particular, they allege that he failed to disclose the decision of the Court of Appeal in Speaker of the National Assembly v Mombasa Cement Limited & 4 Others (Civil Appeal 100 of 2019 & E021 of 2020 (Consolidated)) [2023] KECA 33 (KLR). They rely on that decision for the proposition that Parliament may proceed with a matter despite related legal and constitutional proceedings where it is performing its political and deliberative functions, including investigating, deliberating, informing and making recommendations on public issues.
44. They also allege that the Petitioner failed to disclose that the letter sent to him was an invitation rather than a summons, that the Statement before the Senate adversely mentioned him and therefore necessitated an opportunity for him to be heard, and that he was allegedly not truthful in pleading that he had been issued with summons. The deponent consequently maintains that the conservatory orders were obtained through material misrepresentation and non-disclosure, and that the Respondents are substantially aggrieved because the orders prevent a parliamentary committee from investigating a petition presented to Parliament pursuant to Articles 1, 37 and 119 of the Constitution .
45. Further, the deponent asserts that unless the application is allowed, the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents will be barred from discharging their constitutional dutie s. It contends that the High Court's jurisdiction should only be invoked where there has been an excess of jurisdiction or breach of the Constitution , neither of which, according to the Respondents, has occurred. The deponent therefore maintains that fairness and justice require the application to be allowed.
46. The court directed that the two applications would be heard concurrently and parties filed their submissions.
The Petitioner’s submissions
47. The Petitioner advances three principal grounds for the application:
i. That the Respondents' actions violate his constitutional rights;
ii. That the Senate lacks jurisdiction to inquire into the matters in question; and
iii. That the inquiry interferes with judicial authority and violates the doctrine of separation of powers.
48. The Petitioner relies on Article 23 of the Constitution , which empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including conservatory orders, for the violation or threatened violation of constitutional rights.
49. Reliance is placed on Centre for Rights Education and Awareness (CREAW) & another v Speaker of the National Assembly & 2 others [2017] eKLR , that an applicant for conservatory orders must demonstrate that his rights are being violated or threatened with violation and that the violation is likely to continue unless the Court intervenes.
50. The Petitioner argues that this threshold is satisfied because the Senate intends to interrogate him on matters already pending before the High Court and Environment and Land Court.
51. On whether the Petitioner’s rights are under threat of violation; are being violated or will be violated, the Petitioner acknowledges that Article 125 of the Constitution and section 18 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act empower Parliament and its committees to summon persons to give evidence, provide information and produce documents. However, he argues that this power is exercisable only within Parliament's constitutional and statutory mandate. He relies on George Owino Okode & another v Senate [2018] KEHC 64 (KLR).
52. The Petitioner submits that the Senate's constitutional role under Article 96, read with Articles 110–112 , principally concerns representation of counties, legislation relating to counties, allocation and oversight of national revenue allocated to county governments, and specified oversight functions. Reliance is placed on Mwangi Wa Iria & 2 Others v Speaker Murang'a County Assembly & 3 Others and Republic v Speaker of the Senate & another Ex parte Afrison Export Import Limited & another [2018] KEHC 9509 (KLR).
53. According to the Petitioner, the matters which the Committee intends to investigate concern ownership and title to private land, succession and administration of the Estate of James Kanyotu, the Petitioner's status as a beneficiary of that estate and the exercise of State authority over private citizens. He argues that these matters fall outside the Senate's constitutional mandate and properly belong to the courts. He further emphasizes that he is a private citizen, not a public or government official accountable to the Senate for the utilization of county or public resources.
54. Reliance is also placed on International Legal Consultancy Group v Senate & another [2014] eKLR, where the Court stated that although the Senate has power under Article 125 to summon persons, that power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in isolation from other constitutional provisions allocating powers and functions among State organs. The Petitioner therefore characterizes the Respondents' actions as unlawful and ultra vires .
55. The Petitioner contends that the Senate's conduct violates his right to fair administrative action under Article 47 , because the invitation/summons is allegedly unlawful and procedurally unfair. He further alleges violation of his dignity under Article 28 , arguing that he has been subjected to harassment through an unlawful invitation/summons, and also alleges a threat to his liberty and freedom.
56. On separation of powers, the Petitioner's case is that the matters the Senate intends to investigate are already pending before the High Court and the Environment and Land Court . He relies on Articles 1(3), 94, 96, 109, 159 and 160 of the Constitution to distinguish the legislative role of Parliament from the judicial authority vested in courts and tribunals.
57. Reliance is placed on Institute for Social Accountability & another v National Assembly & 5 others [2022] KESC 39 (KLR) for the principle that separation of powers requires the three arms of government to remain institutionally and functionally distinct and prevents one arm from usurping the functions of another. The Petitioner consequently argues that the Senate cannot determine the rightful ownership of private land or whether he is a rightful heir or beneficiary of the Estate of James Kanyotu, as those are matters reserved for courts of competent jurisdiction. By interrogating those issues while related proceedings are pending, the Senate is said to be assuming a judicial function and interfering with the Judiciary.
58. The Petitioner further states that his status as a legitimate beneficiary of the Estate of James Kanyotu has already been determined in High Court Succession Cause No. 1239 of 2008, with no appeal or review having been filed. He contends that the Senate's inquiry therefore also implicates his rights under Articles 27, 40 and 50, particularly because consideration of matters pending before courts risks prejudicing his right to a fair hearing.
59. Finally, the Petitioner submits that the Senate's proposed inquiry violates the sub judice doctrine, relying on section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Senate Standing Orders, because the matters which the Committee seeks to interrogate are already pending before courts of competent jurisdiction. The Petitioner therefore asks the Court to allow the application and grant the conservatory orders.
60. The Petitioner filed rejoinder submissions against the 1-3 Respondents application dated 20 th August, 2026.
61. The Petitioner states that his application is principally founded on sub judice, while the Senate relies on separation of powers and alleged material non-disclosure/misrepresentation.
62. On the threshold for conservatory orders he relies on Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014] eKLR , the Petitioner submits that conservatory orders are public-law remedies intended to preserve constitutional values, orderly functioning of public bodies and the Court's adjudicatory authority. The Petitioner identifies the relevant considerations as whether: there is a prima facie case with a likelihood of success ; the applicant is likely to suffer prejudice from an actual or threatened constitutional violation; refusal of the order would render the Petition nugatory; and the public interest favours the order.
63. Relying on Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others , Gachagua & 40 Others v Speaker, National Assembly & 15 Others , and Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v KRA & another , the Petitioner argues that the pleadings and evidence disclose a prima facie constitutional case. The principal basis of that case is sub judice . The Petitioner relies on Senate Standing Order 103 , which prohibits reference to a matter that is sub judice where there are active civil or criminal proceedings and discussion is likely to prejudice their fair determination. The submissions also refer to a 2018 ruling by the Speaker of the Senate concerning the Solai Dam tragedy , which recognized that the sub judice rule applies to parliamentary proceedings where both active proceedings and the likelihood of prejudice are demonstrated.
64. Accordingly, the Petitioner submits that three matters must be demonstrated: the subject of parliamentary consideration is pending before a court; the proceedings are active and have been set down for hearing or trial; and parliamentary consideration would prejudice their fair determination.
65. The Petitioner contends that these requirements are satisfied because pleadings from the pending cases have been placed before the Court. In particular, the alleged sale and purchase of the disputed parcels is challenged in High Court Succession Cause No. 1239 of 2008 through an application dated 29 January 2025, which was scheduled for hearing on 1 October 2026 .
66. In response to the Senate's reliance on separation of powers, the Petitioner relies on In the Matter of the Speaker of the Senate & Another, Advisory Opinion Reference No. 2 of 2013 [2013] KESC 7 (KLR) .The Petitioner argues that separation of powers does not create absolute institutional isolation. Rather, the Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, under which each arm must respect the constitutional mandate of the others.
67. Reliance is also placed on In the Matter of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion Reference No. 1 of 2017 [2020] KESC 1 (KLR) for the argument that separation of powers cannot shield unconstitutional conduct from judicial scrutiny.
68. The Petitioner relies on CREAW & 7 Others, Nairobi High Court Petition No. 16 of 2011 and Martin Nyaga Wambora v Speaker of the County Assembly of Embu & 3 Others [2014] eKLR for the requirement that an applicant demonstrate a real, imminent and
[...truncated]
1. By a notice of motion application dated 29 th July, 2026 filed under certificate of urgency, the Petitioner/applicant sought the following orders: -
A. Pending the hearing and determination of this Application Conservatory orders be issued to restrain the Senate through its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources from summoning the Petitioner to appear before it to answer questions in regards to the Protection of Property Rights and Security of Residents of Two Rivers Cresent Estate, Ruiru Kiambu County;
B. Pending the hearing and determination of this Application Conservatory orders be issued to restrain the Senate through its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources from deliberating and inquiring about the Protection of Property Rights and Security of Residents of Two Rivers Cresent Estate, Ruiru Kiambu County;
C. Pending the hearing and determination of the Petition filed herein Conservatory orders be issued to restrain the Senate through its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources from summoning the Petitioner to appear before it to answer questions in regards to the Protection of Property Rights and Security of Residents of Two Rivers Cresent Estate, Ruiru Kiambu County;
D. Pending the hearing and determination of the Petition filed herein Conservatory orders be issued to restrain the Senate through its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources from deliberating and inquiring about the Protection of Property Rights and Security of Residents of Two Rivers Cresent Estate, Ruiru Kiambu County;
E. Costs of this Application be provided for.
Petitioner’s Case
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Willy Kihara Njoki Kanyotu sworn on even date and the grounds on the face of the application.
3. He asserts that he is a son and beneficiary of the Estate of the late James Kanyotu. He relies on a Partial Confirmed Grant dated 20 July 2020 issued in High Court Succession Cause No. 1239 of 2008, Estate of James Kanyotu , as evidence of that position.
4. The Petitioner states that the deceased, James Kanyotu , was the majority shareholder of Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited , which is the registered owner of parcels L.R. Nos. 11261/11, 11261/24, 11261/38, 11261/39, 11261/48 and 11261/51 , situated at Two Rivers Crescent Estate, Ruiru, Kiambu County.
5. He states that Margaret Nyakinyua Murigu , an administratrix of the Estate of James Kanyotu, challenged the alleged sale and purchase of the above parcels of land, among others, in High Court Succession Cause No. 1239 of 2008 through an application dated 29 th January 2025, which was pending hearing on 1 st October 2026.
6. According to the Petitioner, residents of Two Rivers Crescent Estate and alleged purchasers of the parcels have also individually and jointly instituted suits against him concerning the disputed ownership of the parcels. He has listed the following pending proceedings:
i. ELCLC/E088/2024 – Patrick Maina Ndungu v State Law and Office of the Land Registrar & 2 Others , scheduled for hearing on 9 February 2027 at Thika ELC;
ii. ELCLC/E002/2025 – Johnson Maina Muigai and Peter Kinganga Mutugu & 1 Other v Willy Kihara Njoki , scheduled for hearing on 21 September 2026 at Thika ELC;
iii. ELCLC/E054/2025 – Hezekiah Kariuki Mwangi v Willy Kihara Kanyotu , pending a ruling on 15 October 2026 before the Thika ELC;
iv. ELCLC/E255/2025 – Joseph Muturi Mukia v Willy Kihara Njoki and Hezekiah Kariuki Mwangi , pending a ruling on 29 September 2026 before the Thika ELC;
v. ELCLC/E270/2025 – Beyond Twenty Fourteen Investments Limited v Willy Kihara Njoki , pending a ruling on 1 October 2026 before the Thika ELC; and
vi. ELCLC/E326/2026 – Elilas Ngure Muritihi & 42 Others v Kangaita Coffee Estate Ltd & 8 Others .
7. The Petitioner states that, by a letter dated 21 st July 2026 , the Respondents summoned him, together with other members of James Kanyotu's family and residents of Two Rivers Crescent Estate, to deliberate upon the legal status and ownership of the parcels of land, the legal status and capacity of himself in relation to the Estate of James Kanyotu, and the status and integrity of the ownership records relating to the parcels. Through his advocate, the Petitioner responded by a letter dated 27 July 2026 , informing the Respondents that they had no jurisdiction to deliberate and inquire into the matters, because the disputes were already before courts of competent jurisdiction. He contended that proceeding with the inquiry would amount to sub judice, contrary to section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and Standing Order 92 of the Senate Standing Orders.
8. Despite that objection, the Petitioner's counsel appeared before the Respondents on 28 July 2026 and informed the members of the Respondents of the status of the pending suits. According to the Petitioner, the Respondents nevertheless proceeded to deliberate upon the issues and subsequently directed his counsel to avail the Petitioner before them on 6 August 2026 to answer questions concerning the disputed ownership of the parcels at Two Rivers Crescent Estate.
9. The Petitioner maintains that the Respondents have no jurisdiction to deliberate and inquire into the ownership of private property, nor jurisdiction over succession and inheritance matters. He further contends that the ownership dispute is already before several courts of competent jurisdiction and that the Respondents are therefore usurping the jurisdiction of the courts by discussing and deliberating upon those issues. He argues that this would offend the sub judice rule and the Respondents' own Standing Order No. 92.
10. The Petitioner further deposes that the Respondents' conduct amounts to an illegality, from which the Court should protect him. He contends that his right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution will be gravely violated if the application is not heard and the orders sought are not granted.
11. Finally, he states that unless the Court intervenes, the Petition will be rendered nugatory because the intended proceedings by the Respondents scheduled for 6 August 2026 will proceed. He therefore seeks the Court's intervention through the conservatory orders contained in the Notice of Motion.
The Respondents’ case
12. The 4 th Respondent filed grounds of opposition to oppose the Petitioner’s Notice of Motion dated 29 July 2026 principally on the question of jurisdiction . Their position is as follows:
13. The Respondents contend that the substance of the dispute concerns ownership and title to Two Rivers Crescent Estate in Ruiru, Kiambu County , which was excised from the Estate of the late James Kanyottu. They argue that, pursuant to Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution , jurisdiction over questions concerning ownership of land lies with the Environment and Land Court (ELC) .
14. With respect to the 3 rd Respondent, the Senate Standing Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources , the Respondents acknowledge that it has powers equivalent to those of the High Court but contend that it does not have the exclusive mandate to determine questions of ownership and title to land.
15. They rely on Standing Order No. 228(3) of the Senate Standing Orders , which empowers the 3rd Respondent to consider matters relating to land and settlement, environment, forestry, wildlife, mining and water resources management and development. However, they maintain that this mandate does not confer upon the Committee the exclusive power to determine land ownership and title, which falls within the jurisdiction of the ELC under sections 13(1) and (2) of the Environment and Land Court Act .
16. The Respondents further contend that the ELC has wide powers under section 13(5) of the Environment and Land Court Act to make appropriate orders and grant relief capable of adequately addressing the concerns raised by the Senate Committee. Consequently, the mandate of the Senate Committee cannot override that of the ELC, which is a specialized court constitutionally established to deal specifically with questions relating to ownership and title to land.
17. Finally, the Respondents contend that if the High Court accedes to the Senate Committee’s request, it would be required to interrogate the underlying questions of ownership and title to land. Their position is that the High Court itself lacks the requisite jurisdiction and mandate to determine those questions.
18. The 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents also filed their grounds of opposition oppose the Petitioner’s application for conservatory orders on the following grounds:
19. Threshold for conservatory orders, the Respondents contend that the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the principles governing the grant of conservatory orders as set out in Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014] eKLR , namely: establishing a prima facie case with a likelihood of success; demonstrating likely prejudice in the absence of the orders; showing that the Petition or its substratum would otherwise be rendered nugatory; and establishing that the orders are in the public interest.
20. That the Petitioner has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. The Respondents state that the Petitioner was invited to appear before the Committee and respond to the allegations against him. Instead of taking that opportunity, he approached the Court seeking to prevent the Committee from hearing his representations.
21. The Committee's inquiry extends beyond the private land dispute: They maintain that the Committee is considering broader public and oversight matters, including the integrity of public land records, measures by security agencies to protect affected residents, and measures by the Ministry responsible for land to protect innocent purchasers and prevent fraudulent claims, loss of land records and unlawful dispossession.
22. Public interest: The Respondents contend that it would not be in the public interest to restrain a parliamentary committee from considering a petition concerning the rights, safety, security and wellbeing of citizens who have petitioned Parliament for redress pursuant to Articles 37 and 119 of the Constitution . They further rely on Article 94(4) , which requires Parliament to protect the Constitution and promote democratic governance.
23. Constitutional mandate of parliamentary committees: The Respondents rely on Article 124 of the Constitution, arguing that parliamentary committees are constitutionally established and discharge their functions in accordance with the relevant Standing Orders.
24. Power to summon witnesses: Under Article 125 of the Constitution , Parliament and its committees may summon persons to give evidence or provide information and possess powers equivalent to those of the High Court in relation to attendance of witnesses, examination of witnesses and production of documents. The Respondents also rely on section 18 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act as conferring corresponding powers to invite or summon witnesses.
25. They additionally rely on Articles 93 and 96 of the Constitution concerning the establishment of Parliament and the constitutional role of the Senate, including its representation and protection of the interests of counties and county governments.
26. Right to petition Parliament : The Respondents contend that Article 119 , read together with Article 37 , entitles persons to petition Parliament on matters falling within its authority. Consequently, the affected residents were entitled to approach Parliament for redress.
27. Parliament is not precluded from considering land matters: The Respondents reject the Petitioner's contention that Parliament cannot consider the matter merely because it concerns land. They rely on Speaker of the National Assembly v Mombasa Cement Limited & 4 Others (Civil Appeal 100 of 2019 & E021 of 2020 (Consolidated)) [2023] KECA 33 (KLR) for the proposition that Parliament, as an elected Assembly, has a duty to investigate, deliberate, inform and make recommendations on important public issues, and may collect information and call for evidence in carrying out its oversight responsibilities.
28. On that basis, the Respondents maintain that the Petitioner has not established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and that granting the conservatory orders would improperly suspend Parliament's constitutional powers and prevent it from performing its representative and oversight functions.
29. They argue that the Petitioner has been afforded an opportunity to be heard before the Committee. If dissatisfied with the Committee's eventual actions or decision, he may approach the Court thereafter. Accordingly, he has not demonstrated what prejudice he would suffer if the conservatory orders are refused.
30. Although the Respondents acknowledge that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution to review the Senate's actions and determine whether Parliament acted within constitutional limits, they contend that such jurisdiction should be invoked after Parliament has completed its process and rendered its decision.
31. Finally, they argue that allowing the parliamentary process to proceed will not render the Petition nugatory . If the Petition subsequently succeeds, the Court retains jurisdiction to issue appropriate relief. They therefore seek dismissal of the Notice of Motion with costs to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
The 1 st - 3 rd Respondents’ Application
32. The Respondents also filed an application dated 20 th August ,2026 in which they seek the following prayers:
1) THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application inter partes, an order of stay be and is hereby granted in respect of the conservatory orders issued by this Court on 3 rd August, 2026 in the following terms: “8. THAT pending hearing and determination of the application, the Senate summons to the petitioner dated 29th July 2026 summoning the petitioner to appear before its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources on 6th August 2026 or any other date is hereby stayed and/or suspended.”
2) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to discharge, vacate, vary and/ or set aside its orders of 3rd August, 2026 issued in the following terms: “8.THAT pending hearing and determination of the application, the Senate summons to the petitioner dated 29th July 2026 summoning the petitioner to appear before its Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources on 6th August 2026 or any other date is hereby stayed and/or suspended.”
3) THAT costs of this Application be borne by the Petitioner.
33. The Supporting Affidavit is sworn by Mohamed Ali, the Deputy Clerk of the Senate, on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents/Applicants, in support of their application to set aside the ex parte conservatory orders issued on 3 August 2026.
34. He deposes that the 3rd Respondent is a standing committee established under Standing Order 228(3) and mandated to consider matters relating to lands and settlement, environment, forestry, wildlife, mining and water resource management and development. On 4 June 2026, the Senator for Kiambu County, Sen. Karungo Thang’wa, made a Statement pursuant to Standing Order 53(1) concerning the protection of property rights and security of residents of Two Rivers Crescent Estate, Ruiru, Kiambu County , which was committed to the Committee.
35. The Statement required the Committee to inquire into and report on several matters, including the legal status of the parcels and integrity of ownership records, the Ministry responsible for lands' response to the asserted ownership, action taken by the DCI following complaints of threats, intimidation, destruction of property and attempted unlawful eviction, measures to secure residents, and measures to protect innocent purchasers and prevent similar land disputes, fraudulent claims, loss of records and unlawful dispossession.
36. The deponent states that under Standing Order 56 , the Committee Chairperson is required to report to the Senate on the status and progress of the inquiry, with that duty falling within the current Session of the Senate, which terminates on the first Thursday of December 2026.
37. In the course of the inquiry, the Committee sought information from relevant persons. By a letter dated 21 July 2026, the Petitioner, together with Jane Gathoni Kanyotu, a Director of Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited, was invited to attend a meeting on 28 July 2026 to provide information.
38. The Petitioner did not personally provide the requested information but responded through his advocates by a letter dated 27 July 2026 , objecting to the meeting. His advocate attended the meeting of 28 July 2026 and was heard on the objection. According to the deponent, the Committee considered that the Petitioner's attendance was necessary and invited him, together with his advocate, to attend its meeting of 6 August 2026, at which residents and other stakeholders were also expected to attend.
39. The Petitioner subsequently obtained conservatory orders barring his attendance before the Committee on 6 August 2026 or any other date . The deponent states that this prevents the Committee from obtaining information from the Petitioner which it considers necessary to conclude its inquiry and answer the Statement.
40. The Respondents rely on Rule 25 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules (Mutunga Rules) as empowering the Court to set aside, vary or discharge orders. They additionally invoke section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, contending that the Court has power to review its own orders on grounds including discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason.
41. A central contention of the affidavit is that the Petitioner allegedly misled the Court by stating that he had been summoned by the Senate Committee . According to the Respondents, he had merely been invited to respond to allegations against him in a matter brought to the Senate and referred to the Committee for investigation and reporting. They therefore maintain that there were no summons against the Petitioner and that his attendance was intended to afford him an opportunity to respond to adverse allegations and secure his right to a fair hearing.
42. The deponent contends that, by granting the ex parte conservatory orders, the Court restrained the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents from performing their constitutional functions and, in effect, condemned them unheard on the basis of what the Respondents characterize as erroneous assertions concerning the alleged summons.
43. The Respondents further contend that the Petitioner obtained the ex parte orders through non-disclosure of material facts. In particular, they allege that he failed to disclose the decision of the Court of Appeal in Speaker of the National Assembly v Mombasa Cement Limited & 4 Others (Civil Appeal 100 of 2019 & E021 of 2020 (Consolidated)) [2023] KECA 33 (KLR). They rely on that decision for the proposition that Parliament may proceed with a matter despite related legal and constitutional proceedings where it is performing its political and deliberative functions, including investigating, deliberating, informing and making recommendations on public issues.
44. They also allege that the Petitioner failed to disclose that the letter sent to him was an invitation rather than a summons, that the Statement before the Senate adversely mentioned him and therefore necessitated an opportunity for him to be heard, and that he was allegedly not truthful in pleading that he had been issued with summons. The deponent consequently maintains that the conservatory orders were obtained through material misrepresentation and non-disclosure, and that the Respondents are substantially aggrieved because the orders prevent a parliamentary committee from investigating a petition presented to Parliament pursuant to Articles 1, 37 and 119 of the Constitution .
45. Further, the deponent asserts that unless the application is allowed, the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents will be barred from discharging their constitutional dutie s. It contends that the High Court's jurisdiction should only be invoked where there has been an excess of jurisdiction or breach of the Constitution , neither of which, according to the Respondents, has occurred. The deponent therefore maintains that fairness and justice require the application to be allowed.
46. The court directed that the two applications would be heard concurrently and parties filed their submissions.
The Petitioner’s submissions
47. The Petitioner advances three principal grounds for the application:
i. That the Respondents' actions violate his constitutional rights;
ii. That the Senate lacks jurisdiction to inquire into the matters in question; and
iii. That the inquiry interferes with judicial authority and violates the doctrine of separation of powers.
48. The Petitioner relies on Article 23 of the Constitution , which empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including conservatory orders, for the violation or threatened violation of constitutional rights.
49. Reliance is placed on Centre for Rights Education and Awareness (CREAW) & another v Speaker of the National Assembly & 2 others [2017] eKLR , that an applicant for conservatory orders must demonstrate that his rights are being violated or threatened with violation and that the violation is likely to continue unless the Court intervenes.
50. The Petitioner argues that this threshold is satisfied because the Senate intends to interrogate him on matters already pending before the High Court and Environment and Land Court.
51. On whether the Petitioner’s rights are under threat of violation; are being violated or will be violated, the Petitioner acknowledges that Article 125 of the Constitution and section 18 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act empower Parliament and its committees to summon persons to give evidence, provide information and produce documents. However, he argues that this power is exercisable only within Parliament's constitutional and statutory mandate. He relies on George Owino Okode & another v Senate [2018] KEHC 64 (KLR).
52. The Petitioner submits that the Senate's constitutional role under Article 96, read with Articles 110–112 , principally concerns representation of counties, legislation relating to counties, allocation and oversight of national revenue allocated to county governments, and specified oversight functions. Reliance is placed on Mwangi Wa Iria & 2 Others v Speaker Murang'a County Assembly & 3 Others and Republic v Speaker of the Senate & another Ex parte Afrison Export Import Limited & another [2018] KEHC 9509 (KLR).
53. According to the Petitioner, the matters which the Committee intends to investigate concern ownership and title to private land, succession and administration of the Estate of James Kanyotu, the Petitioner's status as a beneficiary of that estate and the exercise of State authority over private citizens. He argues that these matters fall outside the Senate's constitutional mandate and properly belong to the courts. He further emphasizes that he is a private citizen, not a public or government official accountable to the Senate for the utilization of county or public resources.
54. Reliance is also placed on International Legal Consultancy Group v Senate & another [2014] eKLR, where the Court stated that although the Senate has power under Article 125 to summon persons, that power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in isolation from other constitutional provisions allocating powers and functions among State organs. The Petitioner therefore characterizes the Respondents' actions as unlawful and ultra vires .
55. The Petitioner contends that the Senate's conduct violates his right to fair administrative action under Article 47 , because the invitation/summons is allegedly unlawful and procedurally unfair. He further alleges violation of his dignity under Article 28 , arguing that he has been subjected to harassment through an unlawful invitation/summons, and also alleges a threat to his liberty and freedom.
56. On separation of powers, the Petitioner's case is that the matters the Senate intends to investigate are already pending before the High Court and the Environment and Land Court . He relies on Articles 1(3), 94, 96, 109, 159 and 160 of the Constitution to distinguish the legislative role of Parliament from the judicial authority vested in courts and tribunals.
57. Reliance is placed on Institute for Social Accountability & another v National Assembly & 5 others [2022] KESC 39 (KLR) for the principle that separation of powers requires the three arms of government to remain institutionally and functionally distinct and prevents one arm from usurping the functions of another. The Petitioner consequently argues that the Senate cannot determine the rightful ownership of private land or whether he is a rightful heir or beneficiary of the Estate of James Kanyotu, as those are matters reserved for courts of competent jurisdiction. By interrogating those issues while related proceedings are pending, the Senate is said to be assuming a judicial function and interfering with the Judiciary.
58. The Petitioner further states that his status as a legitimate beneficiary of the Estate of James Kanyotu has already been determined in High Court Succession Cause No. 1239 of 2008, with no appeal or review having been filed. He contends that the Senate's inquiry therefore also implicates his rights under Articles 27, 40 and 50, particularly because consideration of matters pending before courts risks prejudicing his right to a fair hearing.
59. Finally, the Petitioner submits that the Senate's proposed inquiry violates the sub judice doctrine, relying on section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Senate Standing Orders, because the matters which the Committee seeks to interrogate are already pending before courts of competent jurisdiction. The Petitioner therefore asks the Court to allow the application and grant the conservatory orders.
60. The Petitioner filed rejoinder submissions against the 1-3 Respondents application dated 20 th August, 2026.
61. The Petitioner states that his application is principally founded on sub judice, while the Senate relies on separation of powers and alleged material non-disclosure/misrepresentation.
62. On the threshold for conservatory orders he relies on Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014] eKLR , the Petitioner submits that conservatory orders are public-law remedies intended to preserve constitutional values, orderly functioning of public bodies and the Court's adjudicatory authority. The Petitioner identifies the relevant considerations as whether: there is a prima facie case with a likelihood of success ; the applicant is likely to suffer prejudice from an actual or threatened constitutional violation; refusal of the order would render the Petition nugatory; and the public interest favours the order.
63. Relying on Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others , Gachagua & 40 Others v Speaker, National Assembly & 15 Others , and Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v KRA & another , the Petitioner argues that the pleadings and evidence disclose a prima facie constitutional case. The principal basis of that case is sub judice . The Petitioner relies on Senate Standing Order 103 , which prohibits reference to a matter that is sub judice where there are active civil or criminal proceedings and discussion is likely to prejudice their fair determination. The submissions also refer to a 2018 ruling by the Speaker of the Senate concerning the Solai Dam tragedy , which recognized that the sub judice rule applies to parliamentary proceedings where both active proceedings and the likelihood of prejudice are demonstrated.
64. Accordingly, the Petitioner submits that three matters must be demonstrated: the subject of parliamentary consideration is pending before a court; the proceedings are active and have been set down for hearing or trial; and parliamentary consideration would prejudice their fair determination.
65. The Petitioner contends that these requirements are satisfied because pleadings from the pending cases have been placed before the Court. In particular, the alleged sale and purchase of the disputed parcels is challenged in High Court Succession Cause No. 1239 of 2008 through an application dated 29 January 2025, which was scheduled for hearing on 1 October 2026 .
66. In response to the Senate's reliance on separation of powers, the Petitioner relies on In the Matter of the Speaker of the Senate & Another, Advisory Opinion Reference No. 2 of 2013 [2013] KESC 7 (KLR) .The Petitioner argues that separation of powers does not create absolute institutional isolation. Rather, the Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, under which each arm must respect the constitutional mandate of the others.
67. Reliance is also placed on In the Matter of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion Reference No. 1 of 2017 [2020] KESC 1 (KLR) for the argument that separation of powers cannot shield unconstitutional conduct from judicial scrutiny.
68. The Petitioner relies on CREAW & 7 Others, Nairobi High Court Petition No. 16 of 2011 and Martin Nyaga Wambora v Speaker of the County Assembly of Embu & 3 Others [2014] eKLR for the requirement that an applicant demonstrate a real, imminent and
[...truncated]