Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 30th November, 2023· [2025] KEELC 86 (KLR)

Kiplagat v Wakibia & another (Environment & Land Case 47 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 86 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 January 2025
1,955 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nakuru court froze all dealings on a plot with two competing titles, ruling that ownership must be settled at a full hearing before anything changes.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (M. A. Odeny, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 30th November 2023 in which the Plaintiff/Applicant, Caleb Kiplagat, sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from entering, trespassing on, constructing on, selling, transferring or otherwise dealing with L.R No Nakuru Municipality Block 23/44 pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The Applicant deponed that he is the registered absolute owner of the parcel and alleged manipulation or alteration of land records to enable the 1st Defendant to acquire the property in collusion with the 2nd Defendant and other Nakuru land officials. The 1st Defendant countered that she acquired the property jointly with her late husband from Caleb Kiplagat in 2003, was registered as sole proprietor during his lifetime, and had in September 2023 sold the parcel to a third party for not less than Ksh 5,900,000, urging dismissal with costs. The Applicant, in a further affidavit, denied selling the property or signing any transfer, and alleged the 1st Defendant's green card and certificate of lease were fraudulent. Applying the Giella vs Cassman Brown principles, the court held that where a property bears two titles one must be irregular or fake and the trial court must go to the root of title at the hearing. Noting the 1st Defendant's admission that she was in the process of disposing of the property, the court found an order stopping disposal necessary to preserve the substratum of the case, allowed the application, and directed each party to bear their own costs. Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru on 24th January 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case and irreparable harm for a temporary injunction

Holding

The application for temporary injunction was found merited; the disputed dual titles and the 1st Defendant's stated intention to dispose of the property justified preservation orders pending trial.

Reasoning

Applying Giella vs Cassman Brown, the court noted the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the substratum of the suit property. This was a disputed property with two titles, which is irregular; the court must at hearing establish which title is genuine. The 1st Defendant admitted in her replying affidavit she was in the process of disposing of the property to a third party, showing that an order stopping disposal was necessary to preserve the substratum of the case pending determination of ownership.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where property has more than one title, one of the titles must be irregular or fake and the court must go to the root of the title at the hearing to establish which is genuine
  • A mere unsubstantiated assertion of irreparable harm is insufficient to warrant a temporary injunction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or servants from entering, trespassing, constructing a permanent building, selling, transferring or in any way dealing with L.R No Nakuru Municipality Block 23/44 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 40 Rule 1
  • Land Registration ActSections 24, 25 and 26

Cases cited (16)

  • Arthi Highway Developers Limited vs West End Butchery Limited & 6 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Gitwany Investments Limited vs Tajmal Limited & 3 others
    [2006] eKLR
  • Nicholas Kioko Muoki & Another vs Omar Feizal Mohammed
    [2021] eKLR
  • Republic vs County Land Registrar, Makueni Lands Registry Ex-Parte Philes Mwikali Kioko & 2 others
    [2021] eKLR
  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others vs Sam-Con Ltd
    [2003] eKLR
  • Abel Salim & Others vs Okong'o & Others
    [1976] KLR
  • Giella vs Cassman Brown and Co Ltd
    [1973] EA
  • Chebii Kipkoech vs Barnabas Tuitoek Bargoria & Another
    [2019] eKLR
  • Mrao vs First American Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 others
    [2003] KLR 125
  • Koinange & 13 others vs Charles Karuga Koinange
    [1986] eKLR
  • Violet Omungo vs Grace Awino Otieno
    (2018) eKLR
  • Francis Jumba Enziano and others vs Bishop Philip Okeyo and others
    Nairobi High Court Civil Case Number 1128 of 2001 (Unreported)
  • East African Development Bank vs Hyundai Motors Kenya Limited
    [2006] eKLR
  • Mugo vs Equity Bank Ltd
    [2003]
  • Pius Kipchirchir Kogo vs Frank Kimeli Tenai
    [2018] eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited vs Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction over the suit; Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (interim injunctive relief)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiplagat v Wakibia & another (Environment & Land Case 47 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 86 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 30th November, 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/86/eng@2025-01-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.