Dominic Nyamema Gor v Elkana Asila & 2 others [2018] KEELC 698 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu refused to stop the sale of family land because the claimant had no documents proving ownership or a trust.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction over Kisumu/Pandpieri/1461
No prima facie case established; application dismissed with costs
The court examined documentary evidence including certificates of official search, green cards and title deeds. It found parcel 385 was subdivided into 1460 and 1461 on 15th February 1990 during the lifetime of Njer Ogada Wadhare, whose death certificate shows 26th November 1991, and that parcel 1461 was transferred to Nashon Litengwah Asila during the owner's lifetime. The Plaintiff produced no documentary evidence of a trust and had been allowed to occupy the land only by permission, having been given notice to remove his posho mill before the sale.
Legal principles established
#- A temporary injunction requires a prima facie case with a probability of success established by the applicant.
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's notice of motion dated 23rd May 2017 and amended on 27th September 2017 be and is hereby dismissed with costs to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land disputes (interlocutory application in a land suit)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dominic Nyamema Gor v Elkana Asila & 2 others [2018] KEELC 698 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment (Notice of motion dated 23rd May 2017, amended 27th September 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/698/eng@2018-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.