Chepkwony v Sigilai & another (Environment and Land Case E030 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8579 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case
Yes - the Certificate of Title showed the Plaintiff as registered owner of the suit property, 99-year lease from 1st May 1995
The court applied Mrao's definition of a prima facie case as an arguable case showing an apparently infringed right calling for rebuttal. The Plaintiff attached a Certificate of Title for LR No. 631/1667 showing him as registered owner. Coupled with allegations of trespass and threats against his workers by the Defendants, this established an apparent infringement of a proprietary right. No defence or submissions were filed to rebut this.
Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages
Yes - the suit parcel is the Plaintiff's home and source of livelihood, so damages would be inadequate
Relying on Nguruman and Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai, the court held that the injury must be actual, substantial and not measurable in money. The Plaintiff deposed that the property is not merely an asset but his home and source of livelihood, and that he had been in possession for over twenty-five years. The court found the damage would not be adequately compensated by an award of damages.
Where the balance of convenience lies
The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Plaintiff, who is in occupation and use of the land
Applying Kogo and Paul Gitonga Wanjau v Gathuthis Tea Factory, the court compared the inconvenience to each party. Since the Plaintiff is in occupation and use of the suit parcel, he would suffer greater inconvenience if the injunction were withheld than the Defendants would if it were granted. The court noted it considered this limb although the first two criteria were already satisfied.
Legal principles established
#- The conditions for grant of an interlocutory injunction are: prima facie case with probability of success; irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages; and, if in doubt, balance of convenience (Giella v Cassman Brown, applied)
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent, his agents, servants or anyone claiming through him from trespassing, encroaching, cultivating or in any way interfering with the Plaintiff/Applicant's possession of LR No. 631/1667 (Grant No. I.R 69069) pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A & 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rules 1 & 3(4) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chepkwony v Sigilai & another (Environment and Land Case E030 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8579 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8579/eng@2025-12-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.