Keter v Rotich (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5681 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kericho Environment and Land Court stopped a registered landowner from evicting or interfering with a family who has occupied seven acres for over thirty years pending trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case
The Applicant established a prima facie case: documents showed the Defendant is the registered owner of the suit parcel while the Applicant is in possession of a portion of it.
Relying on Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, the court found that the Certificate of Official Search showed the Defendant as registered owner, and the Chief's letter confirmed the Applicant's occupation of portions of Chepseon Block 4/563 and 564. The coexistence of registered title and the Applicant's possession raised an arguable right requiring rebuttal, satisfying the first Giella condition.
Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages
The Applicant demonstrated irreparable damage not adequately compensable by damages, given his extensive developments and apprehended eviction.
Applying Nguruman and Kogo v Tenai, the court accepted that eviction from land the Applicant had extensively developed and occupied, and over which he claims adverse possession, could not adequately be measured in monetary terms. The Defendant did not submit on this issue, and the court was satisfied the injury would be actual and substantial.
Where the balance of convenience lies
The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant, who is in occupation and use of a portion of the suit land.
Although the Applicant had already satisfied the first two Giella conditions, the court nonetheless considered the balance of convenience. Following Kogo and Gitonga Wanjau, it weighed the comparative inconvenience: the Applicant, being in occupation, would suffer greater harm from refusal of the injunction than the Defendant would from its grant, and maintaining the status quo was appropriate pending trial.
Legal principles established
#- The conditions for grant of an interlocutory injunction are a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience.
- A prima facie case is one in which, on the material presented, the court concludes there exists a right which has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation from the other party.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent, his agents, servants and/or any person claiming through him from trespassing onto, using, occupying or dealing with the seven-acre portion of land parcel No. Kericho/Kipkelion/Chepseon Block 4/564 pending the hearing and determination of this suit
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 40 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 3A and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Keter v Rotich (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5681 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract (Originating Summons dated 4th September, 2024; application dated 29th October, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5681/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.