Lochab & another v Allibhai & another (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6779 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court blocked an attempted land takeover, protecting a family that had occupied and used the property for over 40 years.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants established a prima facie case
They did; the certificate of lease in their joint names and the chronological discrepancy between the 1st respondent's order (21.11.2024) and registration (02.11.2024) raised triable issues
The court found the applicants held a certificate of lease registered jointly as Entries No. 4 and 5 and had occupied the land for over 40 years. Notably, the order said to found the 1st respondent's registration was issued on 21.11.2024, yet the certificate of lease and official search showed registration effected on 02.11.2024, before the order - questions answerable only at the substantive hearing. The 2nd respondent, custodian of land records, filed no response on Entries 7 and 8.
Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages
Yes; threatened eviction and risk of sale to third parties would cause irreparable injury and render the suit nugatory
The applicants demonstrated over 40 years of occupation and business use, a letter from the 1st respondent's advocate demanding vacation and demolition of structures within 3 days, and apprehension of a sale to third parties. The 1st respondent did not deny the applicants' occupation. The court found that eviction or sale would cause injury that monetary compensation could not adequately remedy.
Where the balance of convenience lies
In favour of the applicants; maintaining the status quo preserves the suit property
Applying the third Giella principle, the court balanced the inconveniences of both parties, citing Charter House Investment Ltd v Simon K. Sang, and held it just to maintain the status quo preserving the suit property pending hearing and determination of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for a temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and that the balance of convenience lies in his favour, applied sequentially.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction issued restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession, occupation and use of parcel No. Eldoret Municipality/Block 12/46, or from transferring, leasing, disposing or in any other way dealing with it, pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.The OCS Langas Police Station directed to ensure compliance of the orders
- 3.Costs of the application to be borne by the defendants/respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 (1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lochab & another v Allibhai & another (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6779 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Eldoret ELC (suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6779/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.