Sulaiman v Sigilai (Environment and Land Case E190 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 113 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court stopped a landowner's neighbour from interfering with his registered land, but made clear the injunction is not an eviction of the defendant already farming there.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
The Applicant's title deed and evidence of encroachment, removal of fence and threatened construction demonstrated an arguable right deserving protection
Applying Mrao v First American Bank, the Applicant produced a title deed evidencing registration as proprietor. Registration under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act confers absolute ownership unless fraud, illegality or procedural impropriety is established. Legality of the survey is a matter for the full hearing; at interlocutory stage the Court only asks whether an arguable right is shown.
Jurisdiction in light of Section 18 of the Land Registration Act
The dispute extends beyond boundaries into protection of proprietary rights and continuing trespass, so the Court has jurisdiction
Relying on Azuri Limited v Pink Properties Limited, boundary disputes ought first to go to the Land Registrar. However, the Applicant alleges trespass, interference with quiet possession, removal of fence and threatened erection of permanent structures, taking the dispute outside a mere boundary determination into the Court's jurisdiction.
Limitation
The claim is not statute barred because the alleged encroachment is continuing
Applying Park Towers Limited v John Mithamo Njika & 7 others, trespass is a continuing tort for as long as unlawful occupation persists. Since the Applicant alleges continued encroachment or threats thereof by the Respondent, the limitation defence fails at the interlocutory stage.
Irreparable harm and balance of convenience
Continued interference and threatened permanent fixtures may not be compensable in damages, and the balance of convenience favours preserving the suit property
Following Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielson, irreparable harm means injury incapable of adequate compensation by damages. The suit property is the Applicant's livelihood and permanent fixtures would permanently alter the land's character. Preserving the status quo occasions less prejudice than allowing continued development before ownership is determined.
Legal principles established
#- Registration confers absolute ownership with all rights and privileges appurtenant thereto unless fraud, illegality or procedural impropriety is established
- Trespass is a continuing tort for as long as the unlawful occupation or interference persists, so limitation does not bar a claim of continuing trespass
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction restraining the respondent, whether by himself, servants, agents, employees or any other persons acting under his authority, from trespassing upon, alienating, interfering with or in any manner dealing with the suit property pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main suit
- 3.Any crop grown on the parcel by the defendant to be taken care of by the defendant upon reasonable non-violent access till the end of the crop harvesting season
- 4.Clarification that there is no eviction order herein
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 3 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sulaiman v Sigilai (Environment and Land Case E190 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 113 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 29th August 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/113/eng@2026-05-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.