Njau v Chege (Environment & Land Case E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3210 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant met the conditions for an interlocutory injunction
Yes - the Applicant's occupation of and buildings on the suit land established a prima facie case; eviction before determination would occasion great loss; and the balance of convenience favours the Applicant
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown test. It found the Applicant's possession of part of the suit land, with buildings thereon, undisputed and thus evidence of a prima facie case, though it declined to assess probability of success given the many unknowns. Eviction before conclusion of the case would cause great loss to a long-occupying party, and the balance of convenience tilts in the Applicant's favour.
Whether adverse possession has been made out
Premature - such determination awaits the conclusion of the case
The court held that at the interlocutory stage, with pleadings not closed and all evidence not yet filed - including an unresolved allegation that the originating summons was not served - it would be premature to determine whether adverse possession is established. That question is reserved for the final determination.
Whether the Respondent was served with the pleadings
Premature - the court had not seen the alleged affidavit of service, and service is denied
Although an affidavit of service was said to be on record, the court had not seen it and the Respondent denied service. Proper service could only be considered after examination of that affidavit. This finding did not prevent the court from determining the injunction application.
Legal principles established
#- For an interlocutory injunction, an applicant must satisfy the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable harm not compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, balance of convenience
- A permanent injunction cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 27-8-2024 is allowed in terms of prayers 2 and 3, if they are asking for dissimilar reliefs - interlocutory injunctions restraining the Respondent from interfering with, evicting the Applicant from, or dealing with the 50x100 parcel within L.R. No. Loc. 1/Mugumoini/234 pending hearing and determination of the suit and the originating summons
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40 and 260 of the Constitution of Kenya, Section 28(h) of the Land Registration Act, Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Orders 37 rule 7 and 40 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Karuri v Wairegi & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E073 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4182 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 4182 (KLR)30 May 2025followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njau v Chege (Environment & Land Case E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3210 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3210/eng@2025-04-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.