Njoga v Kassim (Environment and Land Case E068 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 61 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kisumu landowner failed to stop interference with her plot because she couldn't prove her land was the same one in a separate tribunal case.
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 to warrant a temporary injunction
- 2.Whether the court should stay proceedings in Land Acquisition Tribunal Case No. E099 of 2025
- 3.Whether costs should follow
Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established for a temporary injunction
No prima facie case was established because the applicant failed to demonstrate any nexus between the suit land and the land the subject of the Tribunal complaint
The Tribunal complaint concerned Kisumu/Kogony/2688 measuring 6.5144 ha, whereas the suit concerned Kisumu/Municipality/Block 2/130 measuring 0.5 Ha. The court treated these as two different parcels. Despite the applicant's claim that the Tribunal land encompassed her property, no evidence was exhibited. Without that nexus, the alleged right and its infringement were not demonstrated, so the first Giella condition failed and the remaining limbs did not fall for consideration.
Whether proceedings before the Land Acquisition Tribunal should be stayed
Stay of proceedings was refused as no ground was made out
Relying on Kenya Wildlife Services v James Mutembei, the court distinguished stay of proceedings from stay of execution pending appeal, observing that stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action that seriously interferes with a litigant's right to conduct litigation and carries a higher, stringent test. Since the applicant failed to establish the nexus between the suit land and the Tribunal proceedings, no basis existed for staying those proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella conditions for an interlocutory injunction are separate, distinct and logical hurdles to be surmounted sequentially; failure of the first disposes of the application
- Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action with a higher and more stringent test than stay of execution pending appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The application for temporary injunction is dismissed
- 2.The application for stay of proceedings before the Land Acquisition Tribunal is dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 40 of the Constitution and ELC jurisdiction over land disputes (temporary injunction under Giella v Cassman Brown principles)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with Kisumu/Municipality/Block 2/130
Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success; no nexus demonstrated between the suit land and the Tribunal subject land
Stay of proceedings in Land Acquisition Tribunal Case No. E099 of 2025
No nexus between the suit land and the land before the Tribunal; stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action with a stringent test
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the application.
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.
Without demonstrating the nexus between the suit land herein and the land the subject matter of the complaint before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, I find that the applicant has not established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
The court finds that the application lacks merit and dismisses it. Each party to bear own costs of the application. Orders accordingly.
a prima facie case in a civil application includes but is not confined to a genuine and arguable case. It is a case which on the material presented to the court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment variously describes the plaintiff as 'he' and 'she' within the same passages
The case number of the principal suit is not stated in the ruling, which references only the Notice of Motion dated 4th November 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoga v Kassim (Environment and Land Case E068 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 61 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 4th November 2025 in suit over Land Parcel No. Kisumu/Municipality/Block 2/130. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/61/eng@2026-01-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.