Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion application dated June 30, 2025)· [2026] KEELC 2780 (KLR)

Jefwa & another v Chief Land Registrar & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E075 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2780 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 April 2026
EME. K. Makori
5,203 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~21 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court refused to freeze the Kilifi plot because both sides claim valid title, so the dispute must be decided at a full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs moved the Court by a Notice of Motion dated June 30, 2025 seeking temporary injunctions restraining the Defendants from selling, transferring, leasing, developing or in any way interfering with plot number Kilifi/Jimba/343 pending the hearing of the application inter partes and of the main suit, together with police assistance and costs. The 2nd Plaintiff swore two supporting affidavits. The 4th Defendant, Sophia Abdillahi Chacha, a director of the 3rd Defendant, Denman Properties Limited, swore a replying affidavit. The Plaintiffs claimed allocation of the plot through the Land Settlement Fund Board of Trustees under a settlement scheme, contending that the Defendants' title was procured irregularly through one Ali Mohamed Ali whose own root of title was unproven, and that they were in occupation facing imminent eviction and demolition. The Defendants asserted that the 3rd Defendant purchased the property in November 2006 for Kshs. 5,600,000 as a bona fide purchaser for value, was registered as proprietor, and that its title was protected by the repealed Registered Land Act transitional provisions. They relied on judgments in Malindi HC Petition No. 11 of 2012 (Meoli J, 8 May 2015) declaring the 3rd Defendant the legal proprietor of the suit property and quashing the 2010 Task Force report, and in Malindi E&LC Judicial Review Application No. 1 of 2019 (Olola J, 17 June 2020) quashing the National Land Commission's gazette determinations. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles as restated in Nguruman, the Court found conflicting averments on possession, could not establish the status quo, and held that the issue of the root of the parties' titles could only be resolved at the hearing. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case warranting a temporary injunction over Kilifi/Jimba/343

Holding

No - the parties each claimed title and possession, the Court could not ascertain who was in possession or the status quo, and the root of title dispute required trial

Reasoning

The Plaintiffs claimed allocation through the Settlement Fund Trustees under the settlement scheme regime, while the 3rd and 4th Defendants claimed registered title as bona fide purchasers since 2006, backed by judgments in Malindi HC Petition No. 11 of 2012 and Malindi E&LC Judicial Review Application No. 1 of 2019. With conflicting averments on possession and title, the Court found the question of the root of the respective titles could not be resolved on affidavit evidence and declined the injunction.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must sequentially establish a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience
  • Where possession is disputed and conflicting averments are made, the issue of root of title can only be resolved at the hearing

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated June 30, 2025 is dismissed with costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSections 6, 26, 107
  • Land ActSections 134, 162
  • Registered Land Act (Cap 300, repealed)Sections 27, 28, 39, 10, 33, 143
  • Land Adjudication Actnot specified
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 1; Order 1 Rule 13
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 3, 10, 22, 23, 27, 40, 47, 165(3)
  • Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice & Procedure Rules, 2013Rules 4 and 18
  • Evidence Act (Cap 80)Section 44
  • Land Registration (Special Areas) Act (Cap 283, repealed)not specified
  • Government Lands Act (Cap 280, repealed)not specified
  • Land Titles Act (Cap 282, repealed)not specified
  • Registration of Titles Act (Cap 281, repealed)not specified

Cases cited (11)

  • Iqbal Sing Rai v Mark Lecchini and Registrar of Titles
    Civil Case No. 1054 of 2001
  • Westend Butchery Limited v Arthi Highway Developers Limited & 6 Others
    (2017) KLR
  • Nelson Kazungu Chai & 9 Others v Pwani University
    (2014) eKLR
  • Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others
    (2023) KESC 30 KLR
  • Samuel Kamere v Land Registrar, Kajiado
    Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2005
  • Katende v Haridas And Company Ltd
    (2008) 2: E.A 173
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Company Limited
    [1973] EA 358
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others
    [2003] KLR 125
  • Malindi HC Petition No. 11 of 2012
  • Malindi E & LC Judicial Review Application No. 1 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land disputes; interlocutory injunction under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jefwa & another v Chief Land Registrar & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E075 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2780 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion application dated June 30, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2780/eng@2026-04-29

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