County Government of Trans Nzoia v Ekidor & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E027 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6959 (KLR)

2. The reasons are contained on the face of the application and in a supporting afidavit of Philip Okoth Okundi, sworn on 19/8/2025. It is deposed that the applicant is the registered owner of title No. Kitale Municipality Block 6/161 and 162 as per annexed certificate of lease and that on 19/8/2025, the plaintifi mobilized armed police oficers from Kitale and Matisi Police Stations and unleashed over 500 goons wielding crude weapons who violently and unlawfully invade Title Numbers Kitale Municipality Block 6/236, 237, 238, 165, 164, 162, and 161, destroyed standing maize crops, commenced construction of a perimeter wall fence, demolished houses on adjacent plots and looted livestock and household good items, with a view of dispossessing him and the co-defendants from their land, by force, impunity and total disregard of the law through abuse of police powers. The applicant has attached a bundle of copies of ID, certificate of lease, lease documents, ruling, and photographs as annexure marked POO- (1). 3. The applicant deposes that, unless restrained, the plaintifi will proceed with the unlawful construction, which will permanently alter the character of his land and cause him irreparable loss and prejudice. The applicant deposes that the conduct of the plaintifi amounts to contempt of court, trespass, and abuse of police power. 4. The applicant relies on written submissions dated 5/9/2025. Reliance is placed on Mrao Ltd -vs- First American Bank of Kenya [203] KLR 125, Nguruman Ltd -vs- Jan Bonde Neilsen [2014] eKLR, and Giella -vs- Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358, that, going by the title documents attached, a prima facie proof of ownership is established under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act. It is submitted that the plaintifi’s acts of trespass and arbitrary deprivation of property are against Article 40 of the Constitution. 5. The primary pleading by the 2nd defendant is the statement of defence and counterclaim dated 20/8/2025, which appears unfiled. 6. Whereas the applicant alleges trespass and encroachment of its parcels of land by the plaintifi, the only evidence annexed is that of unverified photographs. There is no evidence attached to show the nature, extent, and particulars of encroachment or trespass. There are no valuation reports, survey map, or Land Registrar’s report to sustain the applicant’s allegation that there have been acts of trespass as defined under Section 3(3) of the Trespass Act. 7. As regards averments that the police and hired goons descended on the properties and caused acts of destruction, again, matters bordering on criminality are reported through OB reports so that the investigative agencies can take up the issue. The applicant has not attached any such reports where he has asked the security agencies to investigate the same with a view to apprehending the culprits. 8. A prima facie case refers to one where, from the material presented, a right has been infringed or violated to call for a rebuttal from the opposite side. Irreparable damage is one that cannot be quantified in monetary terms. It must be real, imminent, apparent, and evident. Mere apprehension or fear is not enough. See Mrao Ltd -vs- First American Bank of Kenya Ltd (supra) and Nguruman Ltd vs- Jan Bonde (supra). Balance of convenience arises where the inconvenience to the applicant in the absence of an injunction outweighs that likely to be sufiered by the respondent if the injunction were to be issued and the suit is ultimately dismissed. See Pius Kipchirchir Kogo -vs- Frank Kimeli Tenai [2018] KEELC 2424 (KLR). 9. Where the right is not in dispute but the injury or violation is contested, the court strives to take the lower risk to preserve the status quo. See Films Rover International Ltd -vs- Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1987] https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6959/eng@2025-10-15 2

page 2 of 3

10. In the circumstances, the court finds that the applicant has failed to meet the three tests to be entitled to temporary orders of injunction. 11. The application dated 19/8/2025 is dismissed with costs. 12. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025. In the presence of: Court Assistant – Dennis Teti for Kimani for the Applicant - present Situma for Busiega for plaintifi /Respondent – present 1st Respondent - (Deceased) HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6959/eng@2025-10-15 3

page 3 of 3