Magambo v Omariba & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2829 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kisumu landowner stopped a rival from building on or selling disputed land, and can now force officials to reveal subdivision records.
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 Plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success warranting a temporary injunction
- 2.Whether an order should issue compelling the 4th and 5th Defendants to produce the parcelling report for Land No. Kisumu/Konya/2750
Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case with a probability of success was demonstrated
Yes; the Applicant demonstrated a prima facie case and the injunction was merited.
The Applicant exhibited a title deed showing registration of Kisumu/Konya/9164 and a diagnostic survey report by the County Surveyor indicating an irregular second resurvey pursuant to which the 1st Respondent took over the ground position of the Applicant's land. The 1st Respondent's contrary surveyor report conflicted with this, but such conflicts are matters for trial. On the material presented, the court found the Applicant's right apparently infringed, satisfying the Mrao definition of a prima facie case.
Whether the prayer for production of the parcelling report should issue
Yes; the prayer was unopposed by the 4th and 5th Defendants against whom it was directed, and was allowed.
The Plaintiff sought an order compelling the 4th and 5th Defendants to produce the parcelling report for Kisumu/Konya/2750, including original parcel numbers, subdivisions, acreage, coordinates, boundaries, maps and mutation forms. Since the prayer was not opposed by the parties to whom it was directed, the court found it merited and allowed it, in furtherance of discovery and the overriding objective.
Legal principles established
#- The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is preservation of the subject matter of the suit pending hearing.
- At the interlocutory stage, where conflicting survey reports exist, the court's concern is preservation of the subject matter where a prima facie need is shown.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction restraining the 1st Defendant/Respondent, his servants, agents, or employees from constructing, developing, alienating, or in any way disposing of land reference number Kisumu/Konya/9164 pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.An order compelling the 4th and 5th Defendants/Respondents to produce and place before the honourable court the parcelling report for Land No. Kisumu/Konya/2750 detailing the original parcel number(s), new parcel numbers after subdivision, acreage of each parcel, survey measurements and coordinates, boundary details, survey maps and mutation forms, and confirmation that the survey complies with the Survey Act (Cap 299) and land regulations
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the main suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
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 is allowed in terms of prayers c) and d) thereof as follows:
An order of temporary injunction restraining the 1st Defendant/Respondent, his servants, agents, or employees from constructing, developing, alienating, or in any way disposing of land reference number Kisumu/Konya/9164 pending hearing and determination of the suit.
An order compelling the 4th and 5th Defendants/Respondents to produce and place before the honourable court the parcelling report for Land No. Kisumu/Konya/2750
Costs of the application shall be in the main suit.
At this interlocutory stage, the concern of the court is to preserve the subject matter of the suit, where it is demonstrated on a prima facie basis that there is a need to do so.
A prima facie case in a civil Application includes but is not confined to a genuine and arguable case. It is a case which, on the material presented to the court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter.
Issues in the judgment
#The Supporting Affidavit is described as sworn on 10th February, 2024, while the application is dated 10th February, 2026 - an apparent date inconsistency.
The 1st Respondent's ownership is variously given as Kisumu/Konya/9031 in grounds of opposition and Kisumu/Konya/9030 in submissions.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Magambo v Omariba & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2829 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). (not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2829/eng@2026-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.