Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 1319 (KLR)

Olwal v Ojenya (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1319 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 March 2026
EAE. Asati
472 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kisumu court protected a long-time land occupier from eviction by freezing all dealings with the property until his adverse possession claim is decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an unopposed interlocutory application by Notice of Motion dated 17th February, 2026, brought under sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 40 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in a suit in which the Applicant claims land parcel No. Kisumu/Konya/1922 by adverse possession, alleging open, hostile and uninterrupted possession for over 13 years since 2012. The Applicant sought a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent, his employees or agents from interfering with his possession and occupation of the suit land pending hearing and determination of the suit, and an order directing the Land Registrar, Kisumu County, to register an inhibition on the suit land pending the same event. The Applicant alleged that on 16th December, 2025 the Respondent invaded the land with a view to evicting him, and that unless restrained the suit would be rendered nugatory. Although served, as evidenced by an affidavit of service sworn by process server Patrick Okwiry, the Respondent filed no response and did not attend the hearing on 5th March, 2026. Asati J found, under Order 40 Rule 1, that the suit land was in danger of being alienated, that eviction would defeat the claim in the Originating Summons, and that a prima facie case with a probability of success had been demonstrated. The court further held that an inhibition preserves the registry records pending trial. The application was allowed in terms of prayers 3 and 4, with costs in the main suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Temporary injunction pending hearing and determination of the adverse possession suit

Holding

Granted - the Applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success and danger of the claim being defeated if evicted

Reasoning

The court applied Order 40 Rule 1, finding on the unopposed application and supporting affidavit that the suit land was in danger of alienation and that eviction of the Applicant, who claims over 13 years of adverse and uninterrupted possession since 2012 following the Respondent's invasion of 16th December 2025, would defeat the claim in the Originating Summons. The injunction restrains interference with possession pending trial.

p. 2
02

Registration of an inhibition on the suit land

Holding

Granted - the inhibition preserves the records in respect of the suit land pending the hearing of the suit

Reasoning

The court held that the essence of an inhibition is preservation of the registry records relating to the suit property pending trial. Finding the prayer merited on the unopposed material, the court directed the Land Registrar, Kisumu County, to register the inhibition alongside the temporary injunction.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking a temporary injunction under Order 40 Rule 1 must demonstrate that the suit property is in danger of being alienated, that the claim would be defeated without the injunction, and a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  • An order of inhibition serves to preserve the land registry records in respect of suit land pending the hearing of the suit.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Respondent, his employees or agents from interfering with the Applicant's possession and occupation of land parcel No. Kisumu/Konya/1922 pending hearing and determination of the suit (prayer 3)
  2. 2.Order directing the Land Registrar, Kisumu County, to register an inhibition on the suit land pending hearing and determination of the suit (prayer 4)
  3. 3.Costs in the main suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 40 Rules 1, 2 and 3 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Olwal v Ojenya (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1319 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1319/eng@2026-03-05

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