Kipkoech v Bargoria & another (Environment and Land Case 38 of 2019) [2019] KEELC 3435 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land buyer in occupation won temporary protection from eviction, with the court confirming that possession alone can establish a prima facie case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for temporary injunction
The applicant, being in possession of the suit lands with the question of consent/licence left for trial, established a prima facie case with probability of success
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found the applicant in possession. Possession alone established a prima facie case; the only remaining issue - whether the applicant occupied with the 1st respondent's consent or under a licence - should go to trial, there being no written evidence of a licence. A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but one established if the evidence led is believed.
Irreparable loss
The applicant had invested in the property per valuation reports and faced eviction and destruction of property if no injunction issued
The court held that irreparable injury is injury that cannot be adequately compensated in damages and that a prima facie case alone is insufficient. On the facts, valuation reports showed investment in the land, and without an injunction the applicant would likely be evicted and the property destroyed, a loss not compensable in damages.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience favoured the grant of injunction because the applicant was in possession and the respondents had never utilised the lands for over 12 years
The court explained that balance of convenience is really a balance of inconvenience, which the applicant must show weighs greater against him if the injunction is withheld. As the applicant was in occupation and the defendants had not used the land for more than 12 years, the inconvenience of refusal to the applicant exceeded any inconvenience to the respondents from the grant.
Legal principles established
#- Being in possession of land establishes a prima facie case for purposes of an interlocutory injunction
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their agents or employees from evicting the applicant from or dealing with Uasin Gishu/Kipkabus Settlement Scheme/463 and 464 pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent and original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (Uasin Gishu/Kipkabus Settlement Scheme parcels)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- John Kennedy Matete v The Vice Chancellor (Administration) Kenyatta University & another[2026] KEELRC 2768 (KLR)7 Oct 2026
- Ojwang & another v Odhiambo (Sued as the Registered Owner and the Administrator of the Estate of Peter Okati Achola - Deceased) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E032 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4356 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4356 (KLR)7 Jul 2026
- Nabakhwana Co-operative Society Ltd v Lois Holdings Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E058 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2745 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 2745 (KLR)6 May 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kipkoech v Bargoria & another (Environment and Land Case 38 of 2019) [2019] KEELC 3435 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Interlocutory application in ELC Originating Summons (Eldoret); consolidation sought of Eldoret CM ELC No. 33 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3435/eng@2019-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.