Marwa v Muhono (In His Capacity and as the Administrator of the Estate of Mwita Muhono) & another (Civil Suit E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3501 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court protected a woman's 30-year occupation of family land with an injunction and inhibition, blocking its sale or subdivision pending trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with probability of success
Yes - her uncontroverted evidence of open, uninterrupted occupation since 1995 and construction of a permanent home established a prima facie case consistent with her adverse possession claim.
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown test as restated in Nguruman. In the absence of any replying affidavit, the applicant's assertion of continuous occupation from 1995 and construction of a permanent residential home stood uncontroverted. Measured against her claim of adverse possession, this demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success, and the destruction of the family home would cause harm not compensable in damages.
Whether the applicant had locus standi to claim adverse possession in her own capacity despite the respondents' intermeddling objection
At the interlocutory stage the objection raised factual issues for trial; the applicant's claim was framed under Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act in her independent capacity, and the question of intermeddling was a matter of evidence at trial.
The respondents argued the applicant lacked capacity because the land was acquired by her late husband from non-owners of a deceased's estate, amounting to intermeddling under the Law of Succession Act. The court held that her claim was one of adverse possession brought under the Limitation of Actions Act, and whether her occupation constituted intermeddling was evidentiary, to be determined at trial, not on an interlocutory application.
Whether an order of inhibition should issue to preserve the suit property
Yes - an inhibition was granted under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act, extending to any resultant titles from subdivision, to preserve the subject matter.
The court found power under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 to inhibit registered dealings. The respondents did not dispute their intention to subdivide and deal with the land, which risked rendering the court's future orders nugatory. Following Miriti v Kalayu and Githinji v Mararo, the court held inhibition necessary for preservation and extended it to any resultant parcels from the parent title.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for a temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience.
- A court may issue an order of inhibition under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act to preserve the subject matter of a suit pending determination.
- Uncontroverted evidence of long, open and uninterrupted occupation coupled with construction of a permanent home establishes a prima facie case for adverse possession purposes at the interlocutory stage.
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their family members, servants or agents from trespassing, encroaching, wasting, disposing, alienating, subdividing or otherwise interfering with the portion of title number Bwirege/Buhirisenye/142 where the applicant occupies, lives and farms, pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Injunction restraining the respondents from evicting the applicant from the specific portion measuring approximately 0.38 hectares of Bwirege/Buhirisenye/142 where she lives and farms, pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Order of inhibition to be registered against any transactions on Bwirege/Buhirisenye/142, or on any resultant titles if the parcel has been subdivided, pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 4.Respondents to bear the costs of the application
- 5.Originating Summons to be mentioned on 30th July 2026 for compliance with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules; parties to file and exchange trial bundles within 30 days; mention notice to issue in seven days
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya; Section 68 of the Land Registration Act, 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Marwa v Muhono (In His Capacity and as the Administrator of the Estate of Mwita Muhono) & another (Civil Suit E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3501 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Originating Summons; related to Kehancha Succession Cause No. E0071 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3501/eng@2026-06-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.