Imala v Impact Investments Ltd & 5 others (Land Case E183 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4430 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court ordered two occupants of a Nairobi property to vacate within 90 days, ruling the auction buyer's title trumped their claims.
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 1st and 5th Defendants should be ordered to immediately vacate LR Number 209/10669/5
- 2.Whether a permanent injunction should issue restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet possession
- 3.Whether the Originating Summons was an improper summary procedure for contested issues
- 4.Whether the suit is sub judice pending HCCOMM No. E195 of 2021 and HCCOMM/E658/2024
- 5.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to eviction despite the pending challenge to the auction's legality and allegations that he is not a bona fide purchaser
Key legal issues
#Propriety of Originating Summons procedure
Originating Summons was proper since the plaintiff, having bought at auction, only sought eviction and quiet possession with no contested issues.
Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Rules contemplates Originating Summons in straightforward matters. Given the plaintiff acquired the property at public auction and sought only eviction and quiet possession, the court found no contested issues requiring a full trial, so the plaintiff was not estopped from using this procedure.
Sub judice under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act
The suit is not sub judice; it was filed earlier than HCCOMM/E658/2024, the plaintiff is not party to HCCOMM E195 of 2021, and the validity of the auction is not in issue here.
Section 6 bars trial where the matter is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties litigating under the same title. This suit was filed earlier, the plaintiff is not a party to HCCOMM 195 of 2021, and only eviction is sought; auction-process issues are left to the commercial causes.
Protection of auction purchaser and extinguishment of equity of redemption
Section 99 of the Land Act protects the auction purchaser; the Defendants' equity of redemption was extinguished at the fall of the hammer and any remedy lies in damages in the pending commercial suits.
Relying on section 99 of the Land Act and authorities including Moses Kibiego Yator, Njaguti v Thagana, Kamulu Academy and Shah v Shah, the court held that the plaintiff, having paid the purchase price and obtained title, acquired absolute rights under sections 24 and 26 of the Land Registration Act and Article 40 protection. The Defendants' continued occupation amounts to trespass.
Entitlement to eviction and permanent injunction under Sections 152E and 152F of the Land Act
The plaintiff served the statutory notice to vacate under section 152E; with no contestation over his title, eviction orders and a permanent injunction were warranted.
The court confirmed the statutory notice dated 30th October 2023 was issued, invoked section 152F's powers to confirm the notice, and applied Ringera v Muhindi, holding that where title is not contested and the eviction provisions have been adhered to, an eviction order should issue and the defendants be permanently restrained.
Legal principles established
#- A purchaser at a public auction acquires the chargor's interest, whose equity of redemption is extinguished at the fall of the hammer; the purchaser is protected under section 99 of the Land Act and the registered owner is entitled to eviction and quiet possession, with the chargor's remedy lying in damages.
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st and 5th Defendants ordered to vacate LR Number 209/10669/5, South B Shopping Centre, Nairobi, within ninety (90) days from the date of the judgment
- 2.A permanent order of injunction issued against the 1st and 5th Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet possession of LR Number 209/10669/5
- 3.An order issued to the OCS Industrial Area Police Station to assist in the eviction of the 1st and 5th Defendants after ninety (90) days
- 4.The 1st and 5th Defendants to jointly bear the costs of the summons
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 40 of the Constitution; Sections 24, 26, 152A–152E, 152F and 99 of the Land Act, 2012; Sections 24 and 26 of the Land Registration Act; Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Rules (first-instance land dispute)
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 1st and 5th Defendants be and are hereby ordered to vacate all that property known as LR Number 209/10669/5, situated in South B Shopping Centre, Nairobi, within ninety (90) days from the date hereof.
A permanent order of injunction be and is hereby issued as against the 1st and 5th Defendants from interfering with the Plaintifi's quiet possession over that property known as LR Number 209/10669/5, situated in South B Shopping Centre, Nairobi.
An Order is hereby issued to the OCS Industrial Area Police Station to assist in the eviction of the 1st and 5th Defendants from all that property known as LR Number 209/106695/5, situated in South B Shopping Centre, Nairobi after ninety (90) days from the date hereof
The 1st and 5th Defendants to jointly bear the costs of the summons.
the Plaintifi having purchased the suit property in a public auction acquired absolute rights over the said property, as set out under Section 24 (a) and 26 of the Land Registration Act and he is hence entitled to the Court's protection to enforce his right to property as per Article 40 of the Constitution.
The Defendan’s Equity of redemption was extinguished at the fall of the harmer.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of delivery of judgment (15 July 2026) post-dates the amendment of the Originating Summons (28 November 2025) but appears later than the stated amendment date; judgment date is in the future relative to the proceedings' chronology as drafted.
Inconsistent rendering of the suit property's parcel number in the judgment, including '209/10669/5' and '209/106695/5'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Imala v Impact Investments Ltd & 5 others (Land Case E183 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4430 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4430/eng@2026-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.