Ole Samuria & 6 others v Kima & 16 others (Land Case E024 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1348 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court restored landowners' rights over disputed Transmara parcels with an injunction, but refused to punish the other side for contempt because the disobedience wasn't proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a temporary injunction should issue against the Respondents
The Applicants established a prima facie case with probability of success, inadequacy of damages and balance of convenience in their favour; the injunction in terms of prayer 3 was granted and the status quo orders were vacated
The Applicants exhibited titles to the suit parcels. The Respondents relied on a judgment in Kilgoris ELC E001 of 2021 cancelling those titles, but the Applicants showed that judgment was set aside on 13.10.2025. Setting aside the cancellation restored the Applicants' proprietary interests under Sections 24-26 of the Land Registration Act. Damages were inadequate because the Applicants sought eviction and vacant possession, not damages, and the balance of convenience favoured registered owners in occupation.
Whether the Respondents were in contempt of the status quo orders issued on 28.10.2025
The elements of terms of the order, knowledge and failure to comply were only partially established; disobedience was not proven and the contempt application failed
The status quo order was clear and unambiguous and the Respondents did not deny knowledge of it. However, the alleged acts of contempt - demolition of a house, cultivation, and fence destruction - were specifically denied on affidavit, with the Respondents attributing the demolition to the Applicants themselves. Given that affidavit evidence was the only evidence and the burden of proof in contempt is higher, the court was not satisfied that disobedience was established to the required standard.
Legal principles established
#- Once a judgment cancelling titles is set aside, the effect is to restore the registered proprietors' proprietary interest in the suit properties
- The burden of proof is higher in contempt cases and mere conflicting affidavit evidence does not establish disobedience
Court orders
#- 1.The status quo orders issued on 28.10.2025 are vacated and a temporary injunction issues in terms of prayer 3 of the application dated 06.10.2025, restraining the Respondents from entering upon, trespassing on, taking possession of and/or otherwise dealing with Transmara/Sikawa/827-834 and Transmara/Sikawa/836 pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.The Respondents shall vacate the suit properties within 2 weeks
- 3.Parties are at liberty to apply for consolidation of this suit with ELC E001 of 2021, with the requisite application to be filed within 30 days
- 4.If parties elect not to consolidate with ELC E001 of 2021, this suit shall stand stayed pending hearing and determination of ELC E001 of 2021
- 5.Mention on 28th April 2026 to confirm further directions on consolidation and/or stay of proceedings
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land registered as Transmara/Sikawa/827-834 and Transmara/Sikawa/836 (not expressly stated by provision in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ole Samuria & 6 others v Kima & 16 others (Land Case E024 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1348 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Kilgoris ELC matter; related to Kilgoris ELC Case No. E001 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1348/eng@2026-03-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.