Registered Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya v County Government of Kisumu (Land Case E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7528 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kisumu Environment and Land Court restrained the County Government from interfering with Mamboleo Showground, confirming registered owners' rights trump unsupported public-land claims.
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 Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
- 2.Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages
- 3.Where the balance of convenience lies
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case
The Applicant, as registered owner exhibiting documents of ownership and photographs of damage, established a prima facie case of infringement of proprietary rights
The court noted only the plaintiff exhibited ownership documents and photographs of damage. The Respondent's assertion that the land is public land was unsupported by any evidence. Section 24 of the Land Registration Act and Article 40 of the Constitution protect the registered owner, entitling the plaintiff to protection of its property rights pending full hearing.
Whether irreparable harm and balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction
The court found the application merited, holding that refusal would expose the plaintiff to considerable interim damage while the order would preserve the substratum of the suit
The court invoked Order 40 Rule 1's purpose of protecting suit property from destruction or alienation. It accepted the plaintiff's position that an injunction would maintain respect for its property rights without wholly denying the Respondent use of facilities, since the parties could continue under the MOU or a lawful arrangement acceptable to the plaintiff.
Legal principles established
#- A registered proprietor of land enjoys prima facie proprietary rights entitled to judicial protection pending trial
- Registration under the Land Registration Act vests absolute ownership of land in the registered person
Court orders
#- 1.Unless acting in accordance with a valid Memorandum of Understanding between the parties or with the express permission of the Plaintiff, the Defendant/Respondent, its agents, servants or employees are restrained by an order of temporary injunction from claiming, conducting any activities/events on, leasing, charging, advertising for lease and/or sale, constructing on or in any other manner interfering with the Applicant's peaceful possession of L.R. 18042 (Mamboleo Showground) or any portion thereof pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application to the applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Unconditional temporary injunction (the order granted is qualified by the MOU or express permission of the Plaintiff)
The Defendant demonstrated a need for the space for public functions, hitherto accommodated through the Memorandum of Understanding
Costs
Costs of the application to the applicant.
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.
unless acting in accordance with a valid Memorandum of Understanding between the parties or with the express permission of the Plaintifi, the Defendant/Respondent, its agents, servants or employees are hereby restrained by an order of temporary injunction granted hereby from claiming, conducting any activities/events on, leasing, charging, advertising for lease and/ or sale, constructing on or in any other manner interfering with the Applicant’s peaceful possession of the parcel of land known as L.R. 18042 (Mamboleo Showground) or any portion thereof pending hearing and determination of the suit.
Costs of the application to the applicant.
Article 40 of the Constitution guarantees the right to property and provides in sub article 3 that the state shall not deprive a person of property of any description or any interest in or right over property of any description, unless the deprivation is done through a lawful process of compulsory land acquisition.
As the registered owner, the plaintifi has, on a prima facie basis, demonstrated that it has proprietary rights over the subject land.
Issues in the judgment
#The coram gives the judge's name only as 'E. ASATI' with no full forenames
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Registered Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya v County Government of Kisumu (Land Case E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7528 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7528/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.