Katilu & 5 others v Katilu & another (Land Case 14 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1800 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court froze all activity on disputed family land in Machakos, preserving the status quo until the customary trust claim is fully heard at trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the interlocutory injunction application met the Giella/Nguruman criteria
The court found the application merited on an unopposed basis, holding there was greater risk in withholding the injunction than granting it, and ordered maintenance of the status quo pending trial.
The application was unopposed; the 1st Respondent was served but neither attended court nor filed a response. Applying the settled triple test, the court noted it had not interrogated the documents and annexures that would establish the history of the customary trust claim and the subdivision of the suit land, and concluded the risk of injustice was lower if interim protection was granted than if it was withheld.
Alleged customary trust over land originally titled Machakos/Kitanga/28
The Applicant asserted the 1st Respondent holds the land purchased under the Kitanga Settlement Scheme in customary trust for the family of Simon Katilu (Deceased); the court did not determine this on the merits, deferring it to trial.
The trust claim formed the basis of the prima facie case limb: registration of the 1st Respondent as owner subject to an overriding customary trust, followed by subdivision into Machakos/Kitanga/910, 911 and 912, sale to third parties and interference with the land. The court expressly declined to interrogate the underlying documents at this interlocutory stage.
Legal principles established
#- The conditions for a temporary injunction are settled in Giella v Cassman Brown and reiterated in Nguruman: prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience, applied as sequential hurdles
- Where the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated, the court is enjoined to grant a temporary injunction
Court orders
#- 1.That the status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.That costs be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Orders 40 & 51(1),3,4 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (invoked for an interlocutory injunction application)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Katilu & 5 others v Katilu & another (Land Case 14 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1800 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1800/eng@2026-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.