Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 15-8-2024· [2025] KEELC 3614 (KLR)

Mwaura v Muriithi & 7 others (Environment & Land Case E021 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3614 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 May 2025
MGM.N. Gicheru
450 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land buyer or heir cannot sell land while an adverse possession claimant lives on it, because the court froze all dealings pending trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Murang'a (M.N. Gicheru, J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 15 August 2024 brought by the Applicant under Article 50 of the Constitution, Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and section 68 of the Land Registration Act. The Applicant, who sued for a declaration of ownership of L.R. No Mitubiri/Wempa/Block 1/737 by adverse possession, sought maintenance of the status quo prevailing at the time of filing pending the hearing and determination of the suit, plus costs. He deponed that he had been in continuous and uninterrupted occupation of the land since 1999, having been placed in possession by the then registered owner Muriithi Mwei; that on 29 January 2024 the Respondents obtained a confirmed grant in Kandara Succession Cause No. E387 of 2022 naming the 2nd Respondent sole beneficiary of the suit land; and that the Respondents, despite awareness of the suit, had instructed Munene Law and Company advocates to deal with the land, creating a real risk of alienation before the suit's conclusion. The motion was served but unopposed - no replying affidavit or grounds of opposition were filed. Considering the motion, grounds, affidavit and written submissions, the court found it fair and just to preserve the status quo. It issued an order of inhibition prohibiting any dealings with the suit land until the hearing and determination of the suit, ordered that the status quo on the ground be maintained so the Applicant remains in occupation pending trial, and made no order as to costs except that costs would be in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Preservation of status quo pending hearing of an adverse possession suit

Holding

The court found it fair and just to maintain the status quo, issuing an inhibition against dealings and preserving the Applicant's occupation.

Reasoning

The Applicant deponed that he had been in continuous and uninterrupted occupation of the suit land since 1999, having been placed there by the registered owner, and that the Respondents had obtained a confirmed grant naming the 2nd Respondent sole beneficiary, creating a risk of alienation before the suit was concluded. The motion was unopposed. The court found it fair and just to preserve the substratum of the suit by inhibiting dealings and maintaining occupation.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an applicant in an adverse possession suit shows continued occupation and a risk of alienation pending trial, the court may maintain the status quo and inhibit dealings with the suit land.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of inhibition prohibiting any dealings with the suit land until the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.The status quo on the ground be maintained so that the Applicant remains in occupation pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  3. 3.Costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 50 of the Constitution, Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 68 of the Land Registration Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwaura v Muriithi & 7 others (Environment & Land Case E021 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3614 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 15-8-2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3614/eng@2025-05-06

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