Julo (Suing on their own Behalf and on Behalf of 40 others of Mwadzani Clan Samburu) v Gude & 9 others (Environment and Land Case E037 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6324 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kwale court dismissed a clan's bid to block rivals from contested ancestral land, ruling that claims of ownership must be backed by solid evidence, not just stories.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction over the disputed ancestral land
They did not; conflicting claims of ancestral ownership based on allegations and graves without sufficient evidence cannot found an injunction
Both parties claim ownership as ancestral land. The court cannot conclusively determine ownership on affidavit evidence and would require viva voce evidence. The Applicants' allegations lacked sufficient supporting evidence, and the court cannot issue orders based on the emotive state of litigants. Having failed the first Giella hurdle, the application had to fail.
Whether the sequential and conjunctive nature of the injunction principles means the remaining limbs need not be considered
Yes; once the prima facie case limb fails, the court need not consider irreparable injury or balance of convenience
Relying on Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court held the three conditions are separate, distinct and logical hurdles to be surmounted sequentially. Failure at the first stage means irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no consideration, so the court declined to interrogate the other prerequisites.
Whether costs should follow the event given the parties' relationship
Although costs normally follow the event, fairness dictated that each party bear its own costs as the parties are related neighbours
The court acknowledged the settled principle that costs follow the event and the successful party is typically entitled to costs. However, exercising discretion in the circumstances of this case - where the parties are related and live next to each other - the court found it fair and reasonable that each party bear its own costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella conditions for an interlocutory injunction are sequential, conjunctive hurdles; failure to establish a prima facie case ends the inquiry
- He who alleges must prove - burden of proof under Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act
- Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, though the court retains discretion
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 5th May 2025 be and is hereby dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.Mention on 12th November 2025 for a Pre-Trial Conference in accordance with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
- 3.Hearing on 24th February 2026 by physical means
- 4.Each party shall bear its costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 (Sections 1A, 1B & 3A) and Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (Order 1 Rule 8, Order 40 Rules 1 & 2, Order 51 Rule 1); suit filed with statutory consent of the Land Adjudication Officer granted 5th July 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Julo (Suing on their own Behalf and on Behalf of 40 others of Mwadzani Clan Samburu) v Gude & 9 others (Environment and Land Case E037 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6324 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case at Kwale (Notice of Motion application dated 5th May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6324/eng@2025-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.