Ndung'u & 2 others v Mohamud (Land Case E066 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 828 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Machakos refused to stop a landowner from using disputed Mavoko land because the applicants could not prove the disputed parcel was theirs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for temporary injunction
The Applicants failed to establish a prima facie case because it was not clear whether the property they claimed (IR No. 226581/L.R 20322) is the same parcel the Respondent occupies under his own title (L.R No. 32744)
The Applicants relied on their title and cited Section 26 of the Land Registration Act on indefeasibility. The Respondent however produced his own certificate of title for L.R No. 32744, contending it is separate and distinct from the suit property. The court found it could not at the interlocutory stage determine whether the two parcels were one and the same, or who the legitimate owner is, and concluded the Applicants had not surmounted the first pillar.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience favours the Respondent, who is currently in possession
Applying the Pius Kipchirchir Kogo test, the court noted it was not disputed that the Respondent is currently in possession of the land. Given the uncertainty over the identity of the parcels and the Respondent's extant possession and title, the court found the inconvenience of granting the injunction would fall on the party in possession, so the balance lay with the Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must sequentially establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience
- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation, or illegal/unprocedural/corrupt acquisition
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 30th November 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- 3.Parties advised to comply with Order 11 and fix the matter for hearing
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 152A, 152B, 152E and 152F of the Land Act, 2012 and Rule 3 of the High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndung'u & 2 others v Mohamud (Land Case E066 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 828 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/828/eng@2025-02-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.