Kalama & another v Attorney General & 7 others (Land Case E061 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2577 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Malindi froze all activity on six contested Kilifi land parcels until the ownership dispute is fully heard, but refused a broader injunction.
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 plaintiffs have satisfied the conditions for an interlocutory injunction, in particular a prima facie case
- 2.Whether preservation/status quo orders are necessary pending the hearing and determination of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case
Yes - the plaintiffs showed a right threatened with violation sufficient to satisfy the first Giella limb
The court adopted its earlier ruling on the preliminary objection, in which it held the suit was not barred by Sections 29 and 30 of the Land Adjudication Act because the plaintiffs allege fraud after adjudication, with beaconing as recently as 2025. Relying on Nguruman, the court found the plaintiffs had demonstrated a threatened right needing protection, satisfying the prima facie case limb.
Whether preservation of the suit property is necessary pending trial
Yes - disposal of the property would complicate and protract the litigation, justifying status quo orders
The court reasoned that if the defendants disposed of the suit property it might be taken beyond the plaintiffs' reach and would unnecessarily complicate and protract the litigation. Preservation pending hearing was therefore warranted, though only as a status quo order rather than the full injunction sought.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must show a right which is threatened and needs protection
- Even a first registration title is not immune from challenge on the ground of fraud under the Land Registration Act
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 9/6/2025 is allowed to the extent that the status quo prevailing over the parcels of land known as Kilifi/Pingilikani/151, 162, 274, 275, 507 & 573 shall remain undisturbed by any of the parties until the final hearing and determination of the present suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under its constituting statute (not expressly cited in the extract)
Relief refused
#A full interlocutory injunction in the terms sought (restraining entry, trespass, cultivation, building, sale and disposal)
The court granted only a status quo order rather than the full injunction prayed for
Costs
No costs order stated in the judgment
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.
the application dated 9/6/2025 has merit and the same is allowed to the extent that the status quo prevailing over the parcels of land known as Kilifi/ Pingilikani /151,162,274,275,507, & 573 shall remain undisturbed by any of the parties until the final hearing and determination of the present suit.
It is clear that the plaintifis have satisfied the limb of a prima facie case as one of the conditions set out in the case of Giella Vs Cassman Brown 1973 EA 358.
the provisions of the Land Registration Act under which the title in the year 2025 was issued do not exclude any title from challenge on the basis of fraud, not even a first registration title.
This court would be in a position to order, if such fraud was proved at the hearing, that the titles issued to the 4th to the 8th defendants be cancelled.
Issues in the judgment
#The parcel numbers are inconsistently stated - the injunction prayer and order list Kilifi/Pingilikani/151,162,274,275,507 & 573 while the quoted earlier ruling refers to 547 instead of 507
The case number of the suit and the application are not stated in the judgment extract
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kalama & another v Attorney General & 7 others (Land Case E061 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2577 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2577/eng@2026-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.