Ombaba & another (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of the Late Ombaba Mokoro) v Oriosa & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3552 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants met the threshold for an interlocutory conservatory injunction
The threshold was not met; the interference complained of occurred in 2021 and no new activities by the 1st-3rd Defendants were demonstrated
The court applied the trinity of prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience, and the requirement of a real danger from the Wambora decision. The Applicants' own pleadings showed the interference was discovered in August 2021 and the application was filed in 2025 with no allegation of ongoing activities, so no imminent danger warranting conservatory relief was established.
Whether inhibitory orders should issue over the two suit titles
Granted - in the interest of justice the two titles shall be secured in their current state pending hearing and determination of the suit
Although no ongoing dealings by the Respondents were exhibited, the survey report confirmed the existence of the two plots and the dispute over whether parcel 1232 overlaps parcel 867 could only be resolved at trial. To preserve the subject matter, the court granted inhibition over both titles until the suit is determined.
Whether an order for preservation of evidence under Section 35(4) of the Land Registration Act should issue
Refused as premature; the Applicants had not shown that a request for the documents had been made and not actioned
The court found no proof that the Applicants had requested the original Green Cards, RIM and Mutation Forms from the County Survey Office and County Land Registrar and been refused. The Applicants retain the right to cross-examine the County Surveyor on the 3rd September 2025 report, and possession of documents obtained between 2021 and 2025 means they would suffer no prejudice if the prayer was declined.
Legal principles established
#- A conservatory order requires demonstration of a real, imminent, actual danger deserving immediate remedial attention by the court; a remote or threatened violation will not suffice
- Interim injunctions of a conservatory nature can be issued against the government only in public interest matters
- Whether a parcel is superimposed on another is a matter requiring evidence at trial, but the court may in the interest of justice inhibit dealings on contested titles in their current state pending determination
Court orders
#- 1.An order of inhibition issued prohibiting any dealings on the two suit titles (Nyaribari Masaba/Bomobea/867 and 1232) until the suit is heard and determined
- 2.Prayers for conservatory orders and for preservation of evidence dismissed
- 3.Costs of the application to the Respondents in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23(3)(c), 40 and 165(3) of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 35(4) and 68(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21; Order 1 Rule 10, Order 8 Rules 3 & 5, Order 14 Rules 4 & 6 and Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ombaba & another (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of the Late Ombaba Mokoro) v Oriosa & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3552 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (a related suit MCELC/E132/2021 is mentioned). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3552/eng@2026-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.