Masika v Dang’ana (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5112 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court blocked a landowner from selling or evicting a long-term occupier, showing courts protect people who have lived on land for over 12 years.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case
Yes - her lengthy undisputed occupation supports an arguable adverse possession claim
The court noted the dispute over when occupation began (1978 vs 2000) but found the fact of occupation for a considerable period undisputed. Since adverse possession requires 12 years' continuous occupation without permission, the applicant's occupation gave her a genuine and arguable case with chances of success, satisfying the first Giella threshold.
Whether irreparable loss and balance of convenience favoured the applicant
Yes - her occupation with title in the respondent's name showed a likelihood of disposal, and convenience favoured the party in occupation
The court reasoned that with the applicant in occupation while title remained registered in the respondent's name, there was a demonstrable likelihood of disposal of the property before trial. The balance of convenience tilted towards the applicant as the party in actual occupation, entitling her to the injunction.
Whether an order of inhibition should issue
Yes - to preserve the suit property pending determination of the adverse possession claim
Relying on Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act and case law equating inhibition with prohibitory injunction, the court held that where the respondent holds title while the applicant occupies and pursues an adverse possession claim, preservation of the property through inhibition is imperative to keep the subject matter available during the suit.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for a temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and, where in doubt, the balance of convenience
- Adverse possession is based on continuous occupation by a trespasser without the owner's permission for a period of 12 years
- An inhibition order under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act preserves the suit property pending hearing and determination, similar to a prohibitory injunction
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from entering upon, evicting the plaintiff, alienating, selling, transferring, charging, subdividing, fencing, constructing on or in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's quiet possession and occupation of the defined portions on part of title L.R no. Lugari/Likuyani/Block 1 (Vihiga) 194 pending the hearing and determination of this suit
- 2.An order of inhibition inhibiting the registration of any dealings whatsoever in respect of L.R no. Lugari/Likuyani/Block 1 (Vihiga) 194 pending the hearing and determination of this suit
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Masika v Dang’ana (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5112 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5112/eng@2026-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.