Imarisha Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd v County Government of Bomet & another
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped Bomet County from interfering with a SACCO's land until the full case is heard, and made the county pay the legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for temporary injunction
Established: the Applicant holds a document of title since 2018 and the Respondents have taken overt adverse steps, without the Court making findings on ultimate validity of title.
Applying Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, the Court held that contested questions of title validity, Development Plan interpretation and propriety of allotment require full evidentiary testing at the substantive hearing. At the interlocutory stage, the Certificate of Lease held since 1 February 2018 plus the 2nd Respondent's letter and Stay Order of 21 January 2026 showed an apparently infringed right calling for rebuttal.
Irreparable injury
Demonstrated: loss of contractor charges is quantifiable, but risk of encroachment on unsecured land and reputational harm are not precisely measurable in money.
Applying Nguruman and Pius Kipchirchir Kogo, the Court distinguished quantifiable contractor losses from encroachment risk and reputational damage to a community-owned financial institution dependent on public confidence. The Respondents did not directly controvert these specific averments, so the Applicant showed injury not adequately compensable by damages.
Balance of convenience
Tilts in favour of the Applicant on the principle of preservation of the status quo, though its determination was not strictly necessary.
Having found a prima facie case and irreparable injury, the Court considered the balance of convenience only 'for what it is worth'. If the injunction were refused and the Petition succeeded, the Applicant would lose property owned for several years; if granted and the Petition failed, the property would remain available to the Respondents.
Costs
Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the Respondents to bear the costs of the application.
The Court found no reason to depart from the general rule that a successful party ordinarily receives costs, having found in favour of the Applicant on the application.
Legal principles established
#- A registered proprietor who holds a document of title and against whom adverse steps have been taken discloses a prima facie case at the interlocutory stage without definitive findings on ultimate title.
- Risk of encroachment on unsecured land and reputational harm to a community-owned financial institution are injuries not adequately compensable in damages.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary order of injunction restraining the Respondents, by themselves, their agents, servants and/or employees, from entering, trespassing, re-allocating or howsoever interfering with the Petitioner/Applicant's use, occupation and quiet enjoyment of its property comprised in L.R. No. Bomet Township/344, pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
- 2.The costs of the application shall be borne by the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23(1), 24, 27, 40, 159, 258 and 259 of the Constitution of Kenya; Rule 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Imarisha Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd v County Government of Bomet & another", Case Analysis (2026). Petition E001 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5636/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.