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 judgment· [2026] KEELC 1640 (KLR)

Shalaka & another v Muchika (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1640 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 March 2026
ANA. Nyukuri
1,143 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega stopped a landowner from interfering with buyers occupying their purchased portions of land until the main case is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 27th January 2026 seeking an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with boundary features on land parcel South Kabras/Samitsi/433, destroying their properties, cutting trees and nappier grass, fencing, or otherwise interfering with their use and occupation pending hearing of the suit. They asserted that they jointly purchased the parcel, registered it in the name of Enock Tawai Muchika to hold in trust for them, took possession of defined portions, and obtained titles through Kakamega Succession Cause No. 192 of 1993 after Enock's death; those titles were later cancelled following revocation of the grant at the respondent's instance. The respondent, administrator of Enock's estate, opposed, contending the succession proceedings were secretly filed, the applicants were guilty of fraud, and they had never occupied the land or met the injunction threshold. The court identified a single issue: whether the applicants met the conditions for a temporary injunction. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya, the court found the applicants had a prima facie case with chances of success based on unchallenged evidence of occupation (photographs of houses), demonstrated irreparable injury since the respondent did not deny the alleged interference, and the balance of convenience favoured them as persons in possession. The application was allowed in its entirety and costs awarded to the applicants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with chances of success

Holding

Yes - the applicants showed they were in occupation, supported by photographs, and the respondent provided no contrary evidence

Reasoning

The applicants deponed that they were in occupation of the suit property and attached photographs showing houses on it. The respondent contested the averment on occupation but provided no contrary evidence. Unchallenged evidence of possession, against a claim rooted in adverse possession, was sufficient to establish a genuine and arguable right apparently infringed, satisfying the prima facie test.

p. 3
02

Whether the applicants demonstrated irreparable injury

Holding

Yes - the respondent did not deny interfering with the applicants' occupation as alleged

Reasoning

The court accepted the applicants' assertion that the respondent was interfering with their use and occupation by fencing and destroying property. Since the respondent did not deny the alleged interference, the court was satisfied that failure to grant the injunction would expose the applicants to irreparable injury not compensable in damages.

p. 3
03

Balance of convenience

Holding

It tilts in favour of granting the injunction because the applicants are in possession

Reasoning

Given the finding that the applicants were in possession of the suit property, the court held that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo by restraining the respondent pending full hearing of the suit.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • To obtain a temporary injunction, an applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case with chances of success, irreparable loss not compensable in damages, and where in doubt, the court decides on a balance of convenience
  • A claim based on adverse possession requires exclusive, hostile and open possession without permission of the true owner for the statutory period of 12 years

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Orders restraining the respondent, by himself or through agents or representatives, from interfering with the boundary features separating the applicants' portion of land parcel South Kabras/Samitsi/433 from the respondent's portion, from destroying the applicants' properties, cutting down trees and nappier grass, fencing, or doing anything to interfere with the applicants' use and occupation of their portions, pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the applicants
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shalaka & another v Muchika (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1640 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1640/eng@2026-03-04

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