Chirchir & another (Both Suing as Legal Representatives of the Estate of Kipchirchir Arap Marusoi) v Bor & another (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6179 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court refused to stop a disputed ten-acre land claim because the applicants contradicted themselves, with the boundary question now headed for full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case with probability of success
No - the Applicants contradicted themselves on whether the 1st Defendant was in occupation of the disputed land, and the rival title/boundary claims raised a triable dispute best resolved at the hearing
The Applicants claimed the 1st Defendant had rendered the disputed portion inaccessible to them while simultaneously asserting he had never occupied any part of the suit parcel. Combined with conflicting title, register, map and survey evidence, the court could not conclude that an apparent right had been infringed calling for rebuttal. The question of which parcel the ten acres belongs to was reserved for trial.
Whether the Applicants would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages
No - the ten-acre boundary dispute over land is measurable and the injury claimed (emotional distress, inability to use land) was speculative given the contradictory assertions
Applying Nguruman and Kogo, the court held the Applicants had to demonstrate actual, substantial and demonstrable injury incapable of monetary compensation. Their claims were undermined by contradictory depositions on possession, and the dispute was essentially one of acreage/boundary that can be quantified, so damages would suffice.
Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Applicants
No - since possession of the disputed portion was unclear, the court could not hold that the Applicants would suffer greater inconvenience
Having failed on the first two limbs, the court determined the application on balance of convenience. Because it was unclear which family was in actual possession of the ten acres, the comparative mischief from withholding versus granting the injunction could not be shown to weigh in the Applicants' favour.
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
- Internal contradictions in an applicant's pleadings/affidavits on material facts negate a prima facie case
- Where possession of disputed land is unclear, the balance of convenience does not favour granting an injunction
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs/Applicants' Notice of Motion application dated 16th December, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Defendants/Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chirchir & another (Both Suing as Legal Representatives of the Estate of Kipchirchir Arap Marusoi) v Bor & another (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6179 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on the face of the ruling (ELC suit, Kericho, land parcel Kericho/Kipkelion/Barsiele Block 2 (Kaplaba) 45 vs 41). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6179/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.