Adidi & 2 others v Nyamala (Environment and Land Appeal E025 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5323 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Homabay dismissed an appeal against an injunction preserving family land pending a succession case, and ordered the appellants to pay costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appeal is merited.
- 2.Who should bear the cost of the appeal.
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial magistrate erred in granting injunction reliefs despite the 2020 consent judgment annulling subdivisions and revoking the grant
The trial magistrate did not err; the injunction merely preserved the suit property pending the succession matter
The court found it undisputed that the 1st Appellant, as administrator, sold parcel Kanyada/Kanyabala/654 to Samuel Odoyo and William Nyamala, and that the property was later subdivided. The 2020 consent judgment declared subdivisions null and the estate to be shared equally. The trial magistrate's injunction preserved the suit property pending succession, which the appellate court held was a proper determination on the merits.
Whether the appeal should succeed on grounds of bias, locus standi and non-existence of the subdivided parcels
The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed
The court re-evaluated the evidence under first-appeal principles. It noted the 1st Appellant admitted the sale and had cancelled it only after relatives discovered it, and that she was an unreliable witness. The court held the trial magistrate properly appreciated the consent judgment and reached a merits-based outcome that did not warrant interference.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the court re-evaluates the evidence and draws its own conclusions while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal to the Respondent
- 3.It is so ordered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Homabay
- Homabay ELC No. E014 of 2023 [also referred to as E014 of 2022]
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Environment and Land Court from the Chief Magistrate's Court
Relief refused
#Appellants' prayer to set aside the trial magistrate's judgment and declare them registered owners of the suit property holding in trust for beneficiaries
The court found the trial magistrate did not err; the injunction preserved the suit property pending conclusion of the succession matter
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot of the above is that the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
It is my view that the trial magistrate did not misdirect himself but only sought to determine the matter on merit and this court shall not interfere with the said judgment.
…this court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses
I also so find that the seller used half truths to put forth and further her case and evidence. She was an unreliable witness.
by the court allowing prayer (a) of the Respondent's claim, it would only assist in preserving the suit property pending the succession matter since it is not in contention that the Respondent has been in occupation.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the lower court case number: the judgment opens by referring to 'Homabay ELC No. E014 of 2023' delivered 19th April 2023, but elsewhere refers to 'Homabay CM ELC No. E014 of 2022' and 'ELC No E014 of 2022'
Appellants named only partially; full names of the three Appellants and the Respondent are not given in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adidi & 2 others v Nyamala (Environment and Land Appeal E025 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5323 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment ( Memorandum of Appeal dated 9th May, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5323/eng@2025-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.