Thomas Rutto Kanda v Walter Toroitich Kilimo & another [2020] KEELC 1449 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kitale Environment and Land Court refused to stop defendants from occupying land they had occupied for decades while their adverse possession claim proceeds.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether to grant a temporary injunction over land occupied by the defendants who claim adverse possession
The application was dismissed; the plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to the injunction.
The defendants claim 14 acres of the suit land by adverse possession since 1992, a claim pleaded in their defence and pursued in Kitale ELC No. 67/2019-OS. Granting the injunction would result in their eviction and interrupt possession before trial, which would not be just. The orders sought would operate as a mandatory injunction, which is not granted at the interlocutory stage except in exceptional circumstances, none of which existed here.
Legal principles established
#- Orders having the effect of a mandatory injunction should not be granted at an interlocutory stage except in very exceptional circumstances, such as where the respondent attempted to steal a march on the applicant.
- Proof of continuous occupation of land is crucial in a claim for adverse possession.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 19/2/2020 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Thomas Rutto Kanda v Walter Toroitich Kilimo & another [2020] KEELC 1449 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC suit over Trans-Nzoia/Suwerwa/1164 (application dated 19/2/2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1449/eng@2020-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.