Chege v Kariuki (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3939 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court protected a family that has farmed land since 1968, stopping the registered owner from evicting them or selling it until trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Giella vs Cassman Brown prerequisites for an interlocutory injunction were met
All three prerequisites were met: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable loss not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience favouring the Applicant
The court found the Applicant is in occupation of the suit land, a fact the Respondent's own replying affidavit confirmed by labelling her a trespasser. There was no evidence the occupation was not long-standing, and transfer of the land during the pendency of the suit would force her to litigate afresh against a new owner. Possession also anchored the balance of convenience. All three Giella limbs were therefore satisfied.
Whether the sanctity of title and the pending counterclaim defeat the injunction
No - the Applicant's occupation was undisputed and the injunction preserves the position pending trial, including of the Respondent's counterclaim for eviction
The Respondent, though registered proprietor, relied on sanctity of title and a counterclaim for eviction as a trespasser. The court held that the Applicant's occupation was admitted and that she should not be evicted before the suit is heard and determined; the interlocutory orders merely preserve the status quo rather than granting final relief.
Legal principles established
#- A trespasser is a person in occupation, so a party in occupation should not be evicted before the suit is heard and determined
- The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the party in possession
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Respondent, his agents, servants, employees and/or anybody working for him from interfering with the Applicant's possession and occupation of L.R. No. Loc.3/Kariua/451 measuring 2.71 acres pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.A prohibitory order over the suit land inhibiting any alienation by the Respondent by way of transmission, transfer, sale, charge and/or lease pending the hearing of the suit
- 3.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and all other enabling provisions of Law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chege v Kariuki (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3939 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 10-7-2024 (suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3939/eng@2025-05-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.