AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 3rd September 2025)· [2025] KEELC 7540 (KLR)
Erima v Mulunga (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E050 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7540 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#A Kakamega court froze all dealings on a disputed land parcel and protected a family's occupation, because the seller did not contest their decades-long possession.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This was an interlocutory application by way of Notice of Motion dated 3rd September 2025 in which the plaintiff sought an inhibition order restraining any dealings on LR NO. N. Wanga/Kholera/5222 or any parcel created from it, and a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing on or interfering with the plaintiff's occupation of one acre on which he lives with his family. The plaintiff asserted occupation since 1989 under a sale agreement and feared subdivision and sale by the defendant, who had been seen on the land with a private surveyor and purported buyers. The defendant, Chrysandus Juma Mulunga, opposed the application, asserting nondisclosure of material facts. He explained that the plaintiff's father had bought two acres from his father but failed to complete payment, leading to a new agreement in 1989; that a Land Disputes Tribunal claim in 2010 was dismissed; and that he obtained title in succession proceedings (Kakamega P&A Cause No. 432 of 2014). He maintained the plaintiff's occupation was illegal encroachment. The court framed a sole issue: whether the applicant had met the threshold for inhibition and temporary injunction. Applying Section 68 of the Land Registration Act, Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, the court found a prima facie case, irreparable harm from potential subdivision and sale, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, who was in undisputed possession. The court granted both the inhibition and the injunction pending the hearing and determination of the suit, with costs of the application to the defendant.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the applicant met the threshold for inhibition and temporary injunction
Holding
The application was allowed; an inhibition and a temporary injunction were granted pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Reasoning
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles. The 1989 sale agreement and the applicant's occupation of the suit property were not contested by the respondent, establishing a prima facie case. The risk of subdivision and sale to third parties, uncontested by the respondent, established irreparable harm. As the applicant was in possession, a fact confirmed by the respondent, the balance of convenience favoured granting the orders.
p. 3
Legal principles established
#- The applicant for a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case with chances of success, irreparable injury, and that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.
- Possession of land coupled with a risk of subdivision and sale establishes irreparable harm warranting both injunction and inhibition pending determination of the suit.
Court orders
#- 1.That pending the hearing and determination of this suit an inhibition order is hereby issued restraining any dealings on LR NO. N. Wanga/Kholera/5222 and or to any created parcel of land therefrom.
- 2.That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the defendant, his agent, nominees, servants be restrained from trespassing and or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful occupation of one acre of land where he stays with his family out LR NO. N. Wanga/Kholera/5222.
- 3.Costs of the application shall be borne by the defendant.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 68 of the Land Registration Act and Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Erima v Mulunga (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E050 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7540 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 3rd September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7540/eng@2025-10-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.