AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 24th April, 2025)· [2025] KEELC 4785 (KLR)
Abdinedi v Odongo (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4785 (KLR)
Environment and Land Court (not expressly named; judge signing at Kisumu)
26 June 2025
1,121 words in judgment
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#A Kisumu court has temporarily stopped a landowner from evicting a woman who has occupied two Kisumu plots since 1993, pending full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is an interlocutory ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 24th April, 2025 brought under Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from trespassing on, transmitting, disposing of, or evicting the Applicant and her family from land parcels Kisumu/Konya/3524 and 3525 pending hearing of the suit. The Applicant, who claims to have purchased and occupied the lands since 1993 and to be seeking adverse possession after over 32 years in occupation, alleged that following her husband's death in March 2024 the Respondent visited her with armed goons demanding vacation and intends to sell the property. The Respondent denied selling the lands, asserting that she took loans over them in 1993 and 2011, and that in 2018 she permitted the Applicant's husband to occupy the lands to rear chicken; she alleged laches and an undertaking to demolish structures. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown test, the court held that the Applicant had established a prima facie case with probability of success and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo, since occupation was undisputed and the question whether it was permissive or adverse would be determined at the main hearing. The application was allowed: a temporary injunction issued as prayed and costs were made to abide the main suit.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the Applicant met the Giella test for a temporary injunction
Holding
Yes - a prima facie case with probability of success was established and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo
Reasoning
The court accepted that the Applicant is in occupation of the suit lands, though whether by permission (as the Respondent contends) or as an adverse possessor since 1993 (as she contends) is left to trial. Given that unresolved factual contest and 32 years of occupation, preservation of the status quo by injunction was warranted pending full hearing.
p. 3
Legal principles established
#- In order for an interlocutory injunction to issue, the applicant must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages, and failing which the court decides on a balance of convenience
- At the interlocutory stage the court's duty is to preserve the demonstrated status quo pending hearing of the suit
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction restraining the Respondent, her agents, family, servants and/or whomsoever jointly and severally from trespassing, transmitting, disposing of, or evicting the Applicant and her family from land parcel numbers Kisumu/Konya/3524 and 3525 pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs to abide the main suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdinedi v Odongo (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4785 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 24th April, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4785/eng@2025-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.