Tsango & 2 others v Mwachangoma & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E062 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5264 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kwale court refused to stop tree-cutting and land sales because the claimants brought no title documents, only family history claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case
They did not; ownership allegations were unsupported by any title evidence while Defendants produced copies of title deeds
The Applicants claimed the suit properties as ancestral land of the estate of Betsango Mwaguta Chamoyo but tendered no certificate of title, official search or other conclusive evidence of ownership. The Defendants, as registered proprietors, produced copies of title deeds and OB reports. The court found the claim to be mere allegations unsupported by sufficient evidence, so the first Giella hurdle failed and the remaining limbs need not be considered.
Admissibility of photographic (electronic) evidence without a Section 106B certificate
The certificate is required to authenticate electronic records, but where authenticity is not disputed, the photographs may be used at the interlocutory stage as a matter of form rather than substance
Section 106B of the Evidence Act requires a certificate identifying the electronic record and describing its production. The court accepted the mandatory nature of the requirement but noted the Defendants did not dispute the origin of the photographs, only the absence of a certificate. At the interlocutory stage the court treated this as an issue of form rather than substance, usable for preservation of the subject matter.
Costs
Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, but the court exercised its discretion to order each party to bear its own costs
The court rehearsed the statutory discretion under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, noting that costs follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders. Given the circumstances of the interlocutory dispute, the court directed that every party bear their own costs.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella conditions for interlocutory injunction are conjunctive and must be satisfied sequentially; failure of one disposes of the application
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 25th February 2026 be and is hereby found to be unmeritorious and hence dismissed
- 2.A final Pre-Trial session on 19th October, 2026 pursuant to Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; the scheduled hearing of 18th November, 2026 before ELC No. 1 Kwale preferably through Physical Means to be retained
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, Environment and Land Court Practice Directions Rule 20, and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tsango & 2 others v Mwachangoma & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E062 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5264 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 1 of Kwale (Notice of Motion dated 25th February 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5264/eng@2026-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.