Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of motion dated 18th October, 2024· [2025] KEELC 7878 (KLR)

Mulandi & another v Ngala & 5 others (Environment and Land Appeal E033 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7878 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 November 2025
EOE. O. OBAGA
929 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Makueni refused to stop dealings over a disputed plot because the buyers claiming possession had no strong enough case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court (Hon. E. O. Obaga, Judge) determined a notice of motion dated 18th October 2024 in which the Plaintiffs/Applicants sought a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents from entering, trespassing on, constructing on, cultivating, selling, disposing of, transferring or dealing with land parcel Makueni/Kiboko "B"/491 pending the hearing of the suit. The 1st Applicant claimed he was offered plot 491 in the Kiboko "B" Settlement Scheme on 30th June 1999, and sold it to the 2nd Applicant in August 2008, who took possession and farmed it. In August 2024 they discovered the plot had been re-allocated to the 1st Respondent, who transferred it to the 2nd Respondent, now holding title. The 2nd Respondent countered that the 1st Applicant breached the conditions of allocation, the plot was lawfully reallocated to the 1st Respondent, and he (the 2nd Respondent) purchased it, holds title and is in possession. Applying the Giella v Cassan Brown & Co. Ltd principles cited by the Applicants, the court found no prima facie case: it doubted the 2nd Applicant's claim to possession given his request for police assistance, and noted his 16-year delay in visiting the lands office after purchase. Even entertaining doubts about the reallocation, the balance of convenience favoured the 2nd Respondent who holds title and is in possession. The court declined injunctive relief and dismissed the application with costs to the 1st and 2nd Respondent. The suit proceeds to full hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants met the Giella threshold for a temporary injunction

Holding

No prima facie case was demonstrated; the Applicants' delay and lack of possession defeated the application

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the 2nd Applicant's claim of possession was inconsistent with his request for police assistance to enforce compliance. Having bought the plot in 2008, he only visited the lands office after 16 years. The 2nd Respondent holds title and is in possession, so no prima facie case arose and the balance of convenience favoured the Respondents.

p. 3
02

Whether the alleged improper reallocation of the suit property warranted injunctive relief

Holding

The propriety of the reallocation was not a question for determination at the interlocutory stage

Reasoning

The court held that even if doubts existed about the manner of reallocation, that issue was not for determination on the interlocutory application, and in any event the balance of convenience favoured the titled, possessory respondent.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Possession is a decisive factor on the balance of convenience; where the respondent holds title and is in possession, an applicant not in possession cannot obtain an interlocutory injunction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declined to grant any injunctive orders
  2. 2.Dismissed the Applicants' application with costs to the 1st and 2nd Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction over land within Makueni County; interlocutory injunctive relief over land parcel Makueni/Kiboko "B"/491

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mulandi & another v Ngala & 5 others (Environment and Land Appeal E033 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7878 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 18th October, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7878/eng@2025-11-13

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.