Cherono v Cherono (Environment and Land Appeal E069 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2962 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to stop a brother from using land registered in their living father's name, saying beneficial ownership alone cannot win an injunction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant met the threshold for a temporary injunction pending appeal
The Applicant did not meet the threshold and the application was dismissed
The Applicant admitted the suit land is registered in his father's name, who is still alive, and that he is only a beneficial owner. It was not disputed that the Respondent occupies part of the suit land. The court applied the settled principles for injunctions pending appeal from Patricia Njeri v National Museum of Kenya and Charter House Investments, and found the Applicant had not established entitlement to the discretionary relief.
Whether the court can grant injunctive orders pending an appeal from a subordinate court ruling
The court has such power under Order 42 Rule 6(6) provided the procedure for instituting the appeal has been complied with, but the power is discretionary and was not exercised in the Applicant's favour
The court reproduced Order 42 Rule 6(6) and the principles in Patricia Njeri and Charter House Investments. It noted the appeal is against a ruling of the lower court dismissing an injunction application and that the suit remains pending before the lower court. Discretion was declined because the Applicant's beneficial interest did not displace the registered ownership of his living father nor the Respondent's occupation.
Whether family disputes over allocation of land by a living parent should be resolved through alternative dispute resolution
The court observed the dispute between two brothers over their living father's land should benefit from alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
The court noted a Guardian ad litem had been appointed for the father, who is alive but unable to represent himself. It expressed the view that the dispute between the brothers over their father's land is suited to ADR rather than continued litigation, though this observation did not form the operative basis of the dismissal.
Legal principles established
#- Order 42 Rule 6(6) empowers the court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction pending appeal where the procedure for instituting an appeal from a subordinate court has been complied with
- An injunction pending appeal is a discretionary remedy, exercised against an applicant whose appeal is frivolous, refused where it would inflict greater hardship than it would avoid, and granted only where refusal would render the appeal nugatory
- A temporary injunction is not a matter of right; the court balances the convenience of the parties and possible injuries
- Where a judge dismisses an application for interlocutory injunction, he has jurisdiction to grant an injunction pending appeal to prevent the appeal being rendered nugatory
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 2nd January 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- On appeal from
- Subordinate court (lower court, not named in the judgment)
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules - appellate jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction pending appeal from a subordinate court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cherono v Cherono (Environment and Land Appeal E069 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2962 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment ( Appeal against ruling of the lower court delivered on 4th October 2025 ). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2962/eng@2026-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.