George Otieno Apiyo v County Government of Nairobi City & 2 Others
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court has frozen all dealings with two Kariokor properties after a son claimed they belonged to his late parents, protecting them until the ownership dispute is fully heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
Established on the strength of rent cards, proof of payments, invoices and correspondence showing a longstanding relationship with the suit properties; ownership claims need not be conclusively proved at this stage.
The court found the documentary evidence demonstrated a historical connection between the deceased parents and the suit properties and due payment of obligations. It held that a prima facie case requires only an arguable right threatened with infringement, not conclusive proof of ownership or inheritance, which must await trial.
Irreparable harm
Likelihood of irreparable harm established because the suit properties are specific immovable properties directly in dispute and dealings could prejudice the effectiveness of final relief.
The court reasoned that any dealings or alterations to the register before determination could complicate the dispute and prejudice the relief ultimately granted. The dispute over who is recognised for rent and rates payments showed the parties are actively fighting over ownership, warranting preservation of the subject matter.
Balance of convenience and inhibition
Balance of convenience favours preservation; an inhibition under Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act is appropriate to maintain the registration status quo, but shall not block lawful payment obligations.
The court held an inhibition is a preservatory order preventing dealings pending determination, particularly appropriate where competing rights cannot be conclusively determined interlocutorily. It qualified the order so parties may still pay rent, rates and statutory charges.
Legal principles established
#- An interlocutory injunction preserves the existing position so that the court's eventual determination is not rendered nugatory.
- Establishing a prima facie case does not require conclusive proof of the claim at the interlocutory stage.
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Respondents, their servants, agents, assignees or any persons acting through them from selling, transferring, disposing of, charging or otherwise alienating or dealing with Kariokor House No. 176 and Kariokor Market Shop No. 168 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Inhibition pursuant to Section 68 of the Land Registration Act inhibiting registration of any transfer, charge, lease, assignment or other disposition affecting Kariokor House No. 176 and Kariokor Market Shop No. 168 pending the hearing and determination of the suit or further orders of the court
- 3.That status quo be maintained
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Section 63E of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Otieno Apiyo v County Government of Nairobi City & 2 Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. E297 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6222/eng@2026-10-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.