Mwazama & 16 others v Fondo & 3 others (Land Case E137 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2803 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Malindi court blocked land buyers from interfering with disputed Kilifi plots, ruling that uncancelled titles gave owners a strong enough case to protect the land until trial.
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 principles for grant of a temporary injunction set out in Giella v Cassman Brown
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - the plaintiffs hold titles in their names and the signed Adjudication Record; the manner in which the defendants' titles were issued without apparent cancellation of the plaintiffs' titles raises a triable issue.
The court relied on section 26 of the Land Registration Act, which renders certificates of title prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership. The plaintiffs possessed titles not yet cancelled. The court found the process by which the defendants obtained their titles of great interest, particularly if issued without due-process cancellation of the plaintiffs' titles, and held that this raised a triable issue amounting to a prima facie case.
Whether the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted
Yes - the plaintiffs have been utilising the land, face eviction, and the defendants appear to be seeking buyers, creating a real risk the land may be disposed of and not recoverable.
The court noted the plaintiffs' claim that they had been utilizing the suit land and would be denied such use if evicted. It also noted indications that the defendants were searching for buyers. Given the second set of titles issued to the defendants, the court found a real risk that the land could be lost through disposal and not easily recovered, satisfying the irreparable loss limb of Giella v Cassman Brown.
Legal principles established
#- A registered title under the Land Registration Act is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedural acquisition or corruption.
- Where a plaintiff holds titles and shows a real risk that the land may be disposed of before trial, irreparable loss may be inferred and an interim injunction will issue.
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction granted in terms of prayer 3 and 4 of the notice of motion dated 29th September 2025, restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit lands
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- 3.Plaintiffs to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 4.Matter listed for pre-trial on 16th June 2026
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (not expressly cited in the ruling)
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.
I am persuaded that the plaintiffs' application has met the threshold required for the grant of the interim injunction orders sought as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown 1973 EA 358, and I therefore find that the application dated 29th September 23025 is merited and I therefore grant the same in term of prayer no 3 and 4 thereof. The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
This court is of the view that the plaintiffs have raised a triable issue and have thus demonstrated that they have a prima facie case.
The certificate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration, or to a purchaser of land upon a transfer or transmission by the proprietor shall be taken by all courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute and indefeasible owner
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical error in the date of the application within the disposition
Judgment narration states the order being enforced by the defendants was issued on 3/5/2025 in Malindi ELC E024 of 2021, while the defendants' affidavit refers to adoption in Malindi ELC Misc Appl 24 of 2021
The delivery date is stated as 12th May 2026 while the motion is dated September 2025 and the preceding events span 2020-2025; the chronology may reflect a typographical year inconsistency
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwazama & 16 others v Fondo & 3 others (Land Case E137 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2803 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (ruling on notice of motion dated 29th September 2025, Malindi ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2803/eng@2026-05-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.