Zablon Mwangi Maina (Suing as the Legal representative of the estate of Raban Maina Wahome) v Lydia Mercy Njeri (Sued as the Legal Administrator of the estate of Peter Kamau Thuo)

5. That this court be pleased to order maintenance of status quo as to user, registration, occupation, cultivation and possession pending full determination of the suit. 6. That an order do issue directing the District Land Registrar Murang’a to prohibit or restrict dealings to L.R. No. Loc.12/Sub-Loc.4/1163. 7. That the Court be at liberty to give further and necessary orders or directions it may deem fit. 8. That costs herein be provided. (2)The motion is based on five(5) grounds and it is supported by the Affidavit of the Applicant dated 10-4-2026. The gist of the affidavit and the grounds is as follows. Firstly, the Respondent is the owner of L.R. No. Loc. 12/Sub-Loc.4/1163(suit-land). She became registered on 3-12-2025. Secondly, the Applicant and his family have been in occupation of the suit land since the year 1959. They have occupied the suit land as owners since then and five members of their family who include Fidelis Nyambura Wahome, Raban Maina Wahome, Sophia Wachui Maina, Zablon Wahome Nyambura and Lydia Nyambura Mwangi have been buried on the suit in the years 1975, 1988, 1995, 1999 and 2015 respectively. Thirdly, neither the Respondent nor her father ever objected to the burial of the deceased on the land. Fourthly, the Applicant has received reliable information that the Respondent is in the process of subdividing the suit land and such acts of interference are meant to provoke the Applicant and his family and this may result in mayhem and a general breakdown of peaceful co-existence. Fifthly, the Applicant claims to be entitled to the suit land by way of adverse possession and any subdivision and disposal of the suit land will be detrimental to the Applicant in exercise of this proprietary rights acquired due to the long occupation. (3)The motion is opposed by the Respondent who has sworn a replying affidavit dated 24-6-2026 in which she replies as follows. One, she is opposed to the Originating Summons as the registered owner of the suit land since 3-12-2025 through transmission in Kangema Succession Cause No. E118 of 2023. Two, it is not true to say that the Applicants or members of his family have been in continuous, open and exclusive occupation and/or MRG ELCLOS E011 OF 2026 2R of 4

page 2 of 4

possession of the suit land since the year 1959. Three, the late Peter Kamau Thuo, the Respondents father acquired the suit land from one Laban Maina Wahome on 14-5-1970. The Respondent’s father took possession of the suit land and registered a charge over it on 14-10-1970 and again on 1-9-1980. The latter charge was discharged on 19-3-2025. Four, the suit property has been the subject of a protracted court case since 1975 for the eviction of Laban Maina Wahome. The Applicant has always occupied the suit land through violence against the Respondent. Five, the Applicant did not have any right over the suit land before 17-2-2026 and the period of twelve(12) years has not lapsed and his own father Laban Maina Wahome did not file a claim for adverse possession in his lifetime. Six, burial of the Applicant family members on the suit land does not give him the legal right to own the suit property. Her father had always objected to the Applicant or his father Laban Maina Wahome occupying the suit land. For the above and other reasons, she prays for the dismissal of the motion dated 10-4-2026. (4)I have carefully considered the motion dated 10-4-2026 including the grounds in support, the supporting affidavit, the grounds of opposition, the replying submissions on record, the issues framed and the law cited by learned counsel for the parties. This being a motion for temporary injunction, I find that the principles applicable in a case such as this are those in the case of Giella vs. Cassman Brown and Co. Ltd [1973] E.A 358. They include(a) A Prima facie case with a probability of success; (b) Irreparable loss which cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages; and (c) If the Court is in doubt, it will look at the balance of convenience. (5)Since the pleadings have not closed and because the Applicant has not explained the actual relationship between his father and the Respondent’s or how they came to occupy the land and considering further that the Respondent has mentioned court proceedings dating back to the year 1975, the Court is not seized of sufficient material to determine if a prima facie case with a probability of success has been made out. Without the same material, it is not easy for the Court to determine if the Applicant stands to suffer irreparable loss that cannot be MRG ELCLOS E011 OF 2026 3R of 4

page 3 of 4

adequately compensated with an award of damages. Regarding the third principle it is my finding that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Applicant remaining in occupation until the suit is heard and determined. In the case of Muga vs. Kunga [1988] eKLR the Court of Appeal held that in land cases, a party in occupation should not be evicted before the dispute has been finally determined. In his case it is fair and just to order that the status quo on the suit land and in the register be maintained such that the Applicant stays in occupation and the Respondent should not charge, subdivide or transfer the suit land. It is so ordered. Costs in the cause. Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Murang’a this 22nd day of September 2026. M.N. GICHERU JUDGE. Delivered online in the presence of; Court Assistants – Antony Applicant’s Counsel - Absent Respondent’s Counsel – Mr Nguru MRG ELCLOS E011 OF 2026 4R of 4

page 4 of 4