Gatimu v Muriuki & 2 others
The bottom line
#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 applicant has established the legal threshold for temporary injunction order to issue.
- 2.Who pays the costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case
Yes - the applicant pleaded adverse possession and long occupation since 1998, unchallenged by evidence, establishing a prima facie case
The applicant contended he occupies the suit land sold to the 3rd respondent who seeks to evict him. His claim of overriding interests spanning from 1998 and adverse possession pleaded in the plaint was not challenged through evidence. The court held the claim could not be termed perfunctory at this interlocutory stage and found a prima facie case established.
Whether the applicant established irreparable harm
Yes - the 3rd respondent's own deposition confirming felling of trees and harvesting established likely irreparable harm
The 3rd respondent deposed that he bought the land, took occupation, felled trees and was cultivating coffee. This confirmed the applicant's claim. Relying on Onyango & 16 others v Kinyua, the court found the destruction of trees would likely cause economic disenfranchisement not compensable by damages.
Balance of convenience
Having found the first two prerequisites, the balance of convenience naturally tilts in favour of the plaintiff
The court reasoned that once a prima facie case and irreparable damage are established, being the first two prerequisites for an injunction, it naturally follows that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the plaintiff. No independent analysis was undertaken of the third limb.
Legal principles established
#- Transfer of proprietorship in land is subject to overriding interests under Section 28(h) of the Land Registration Act, 2012, including rights acquired by prescription or limitation of actions.
- A prima facie case is more than an arguable case; the evidence must show an infringement of a right and the probability of the applicant's case upon trial.
Court orders
#- 1.Pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the 3rd respondent is restrained from leasing, transferring, selling, disposing, alienating or in any way dealing with title in respect of LR. No. Mutira/Kianjege/1268.
- 2.Pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, their agents, family and servants are restrained from entering, trespassing, utilizing LR. No. Mutira/Kianjege/1268.
- 3.Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (original jurisdiction over land disputes)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application paid to the applicant by the respondents/defendants
Court ordered instead that costs abide the outcome of the main suit
Costs
Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
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.
That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the 3rd respondent is hereby restrained from leasing, transferring, selling, disposing, alienating or in any way dealing with title in respect of LR. No. Mutira/ Kianjege/1268.
That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, their agents, family and servants are hereby restrained from entering, trespassing, utilizing LR. No. Mutira/ Kianjege/1268.
Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
That claim cannot be termed perfunctory, at this stage, as his claim of a long stay on the land has not been challenged, through evidence.
Issues in the judgment
#3rd respondent's submissions dated 17th July 2025 predate the replying affidavit date but are listed as filed after directions
Application dated 24th June 2025 supported by affidavit sworn 24th December 2025, a supporting affidavit postdating the application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gatimu v Muriuki & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Case E020 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5687/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.