Olive Muthamia (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Late Cornelious Muthamia Kiaira) v District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer & 6 others

ii. The Honourable Court be pleased to issue a temporary order of injunction restraining the 2nd, 4th and 5th by themselves or through their agents, employees or any other person acting at their behest from doing the following acts or any of them that is to say disposing of , charging, transferring or causing to be transferred, selling, leasing, land alienating, wasting or developing or in any/ other manner dealing with the land parcel Nos. Ruiri/Rwarera/5332,and Ruiri/Rwarera/9126 which are the subdivisions of land parcels No. 296 [hereinafter referred to as the “suit lands”] pending hearing and determination of this application. iii. The Honourable Court be pleased to issue a temporary order of injunction restraining the 2nd, 4th and 5th by themselves or through their agents, employees or any other person acting at their behest from doing the following acts or any of them that is to say disposing of , charging, transferring or causing to be transferred, selling, leasing, land alienating, wasting or developing or in any/ other manner dealing with the land parcel Nos. Ruiri/Rwarera/5332,and Ruiri/Rwarera/9126 which are the subdivisions of land parcels No. 296 [hereinafter referred to as the “suit lands”] pending hearing and determination of this application. iv. The Honourable court be pleased to issue an order of inhibition inhibiting any dealings whatsoever in respect of Land Parcel No. Ruiri/Rwarera/5332 and Ruiri/Rwarera/9126 which are subdivisions of land parcel number Ruiri/Rwarera/9126 which are subdivisions of land parcel Ruiri/Rwarera/296 pending hearing of this suit. Page 2 of 19

page 2 of 19

v. That OCS in charge be ordered to enforce the orders of this Honourable court. vi. Costs of this application be provided for. 2. The application is premised on various grounds. The grounds are: The Petitioner’ father, Cornelius Muthamia Kiaria [now deceased] balloted for a plot situated at Ruiri/Rwarera Adjudication Section; the ballot was successful; the deceased was allocated plot number 296 Ruiri/Rwarera Adjudication Section; the plot in question measured 17.4 acres; the deceased took possession of the allotted plot; thereafter the deceased built a shelter for his parents, namely; Ikiara and Esther Ntundu Ikiara [both deceased]; the parents of the deceased occupied the suit property up to and including their death. 3. Additionally, it has been contended thus: In 1993 Esther Ntundu Ikiara and the 4th and 5th respondents, lodged a committee case against the deceased; the trio were claiming a share of plot number 296 Ruiri/Rwarera adjudication section; the committee case was heard and determined; the committed case resulted into the subdivision of plot number 296; the plot gave birth to two plots, namely; plot 296 – in the name of Cornelius Muthamia Kiaria [now Deceased]; and plot number 5332 – in the name of Esther Ntundu Kiara. 4. Moreover, it has been asserted that in the year 2003 an objection was lodged by Cornelius Muthamia Kiara [deceased] in respect of plot number 5332; the objection was heard and determined; the objection culminated into the subdivision of plot number 5332; the plot was Page 3 of 19

page 3 of 19

subdivided into three portions; the resultants plots were; 5332, 9125 and 9126, respectively. 5. Other than the foregoing, the Applicant has also asserted that: In the year 2019, the 5th Respondent lodged an appeal to the minister; the appeal was albeit lodged out of time; however, the appeal was heard and determined; the appeal was allowed and the minister directed that the 5 th Respondent was to get a total of 5 acres out of plot number 9125. In addition, it has been contended that even though the appeal to the minister was lodged out of time, the 4th and 5th Respondent are now threatening to implement the decision of the minister. 6. Furthermore, the Applicant has contended that the subdivision of the original plot number 296 Ruiri/Rwarera and which culminated into the creation of inter alia, plots numbers 5332, 9125, and 9126, was illegal and invalid. In particular, it has been asserted that the entire plot number 296 Ruiri/Rwarea- measuring 17.4 Acres, lawfully belongs to Cornelius Muthamia Kiara [deceased]. 7. Be that as it may, the Applicant has added that the 4 th and 5th respondents have illegally benefited from the subdivisions arising out of plot number 5332 and that the said respondents, are now threatening to sell and dispose their portion to one Samuel Muthomi. It has been contended that the intended sale, will alienate the suit property and subject the applicant to irreparable loss. Page 4 of 19

page 4 of 19

8. The application is supported by the affidavit of Olive Muthamia – the applicant. The affidavit has been sworn on the 11.06.2026. The deponent of the supporting affidavit has reiterated the grounds contained at the foot of the application. In addition, the deponent has annexed assorted documents including: copy of the decision of the land committee, copy of the decision of the minister and copies of the pleadings in respect of Meru ELC JR Number E003 of 2023, which had been filed by the applicant herein; and which was dismissed. 9. The 4th and 5th Respondents have opposed the application by way of a replying affidavit. The replying affidavit has been sworn by Isaack Kithia M’Kiara [the 4th respondent]. The 4th Respondent has denied the assertions by the applicant. In addition, the 4 th Respondent has averred that plot number 296 was the subject of a land case; the land case was heard and determined; the land case culminated into the subdivision of plot number 296 into two portions; the portions include plot number 296 – measuring 6.4 acres; and plot number 5332 – measuring 11 acres. 10.In addition, the 4th Respondent has asserted that there was an objection which was lodged in respect of plot number 5332 and that the objection was successful culminating into the creation of 3 portions. The portions are plots numbers 5332- measuring 1.5 acres; 9125 – measuring 7 acres; and plot number 9126 – measuring 2.5 acres. 11.The deponent of the replying affidavit has further averred that the resultant subdivisions that arose from plot number 5332 Ruiri/Rwarera adjudication section, were informed by lawful process. In particular, the deponent of replying affidavit has asserted that the resultant plots are Page 5 of 19

page 5 of 19

predicated on the decision arising out of the objection; and appeal to the minister. In short, the deponent of the replying affidavit posits that the ownership of the disputed plots is underpinned by the due process undertaken pursuant to the Land Adjudication Act, Chapter 284, Laws of Kenya. 12.The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th respondents opposed the application on the basis of the grounds of opposition. The grounds raised are: The Application and the Petition do not disclose any reasonable cause of action as against the named respondents. Further, and in addition, the named respondents have also impugned the jurisdiction of the court. 13.The subject application came up for direction on the 27.07.2026 whereupon the advocates for the parties proposed to canvass the application by way of written submissions. Thereafter, the court proceeded to and issued directions pertaining to the disposal of the application. In particular, the court directed that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions. Moreover, the court also circumscribed the timelines for the filing and exchange of the written submissions. 14.The applicant filed written submissions dated the 25.08.2026 and wherein, same has canvassed three [3] key issues. The issues are: The Applicant has established a prima facie case with probability of success; the applicant shall be disposed to suffer irreparable loss; and the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Applicant. Page 6 of 19

page 6 of 19

15.To buttress the submissions, the appellant has cited various decisions. The decisions are: Geilla versus Cassman Brown and company limited [1973] EA 358; Mrao Limited versus First American Bank of Kenya Limited and 2 others; 2002 EKLR; Orion East Africa Limited versus Eco Bank Kenya Limited and another [2015] KECA 682; and Ngurruman Limited versus Janne Bonde Nielsen and 2 others [2014] KECA 606, respectively. 16.In a nutshell, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has established/met the requisite conditions to warrant the grant of the orders of temporary injunction. In particular, it has been submitted that the applicant has established a prima facie case as pertains to the illegality leading to the creation of the disputed plots. Moreover, it has been asserted that plot number 296 Ruiri Rwarera [in its original shape] belongs to Cornelius Muthamia Ikiara [deceased]. 17.The 4th and 5th respondents filed written submissions dated the 24.09.2026 and wherein same have raised three [3] key issues. The issues are: The disputed plots were birthed out of the lawful adjudication process; the applicant has neither established nor demonstrate any prima facie case with a probability of success; and the Applicant shall not be disposed to suffer any irreparable loss or otherwise. 18.Having reviewed the Notice of Motion application; the supporting affidavit thereto; the replying affidavit in opposition sworn on 13.07.2026; the grounds of opposition in opposition thereto; and upon taking into account the written submissions on record; and bearing in Page 7 of 19

page 7 of 19

mind the applicable principles governing the issuance of an order of temporary injunction, two [2] key issues emerge for determination. 19. The issues are: Whether the Applicant as established/demonstrated the existence of a prima facie case with a probability of success or otherwise; and Whether there is a likelihood of irreparable loss arising, if the orders sought are not granted. 20.Regarding the first issue, it is imperative to observe that any claimant seeking to procure or partake of an order of temporary injunction, the applicant herein not excepted, is obligated to establish the existence of a prima facie case with a probability of success. The case/issues to be raised before the court must, on the face of it [ex facie], disclose a genuine and arguable issues, which shall be investigated by the court during the plenary hearing. 21.In particular, the clamant must demonstrate on a prima facie basis that: The same has a stake or interest in the disputed property; the interest may either be legal or equitable; the interest must be legitimate; the interest must be on the verge of being injured and or harmed; the person threatening harm or injury, must be shown to have no rights to the property in question. Simply put, the applicant must demonstrate that his or her rights are exposed to interference by a third party. 22.What constitutes prima facie case has been the subject of various decisions of the Superior Courts. In the case of Nguruman Limited v Nielsen & 2 others [2014] KECA 606 (KLR), the Court of Appeal highlighted the meaning of a prima facie case in the following manner: Page 8 of 19

page 8 of 19

30.“Prima facie” is a Latin phrase for “at first sight”, whose legal meaning and application has been the subject of varying interpretation by courts in many jurisdictions. Phrases like “a serious question to be tried”, “a question which is not vexatious or frivolous”, “an arguable case” have been adopted to describe the burden imposed on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of prima facie case. The leading English House of Lords case of the American Cyanamid Co. Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 is a case in point. The meaning of “prima facie case”, in our view, should not be too much stretched to land in the loss of real purpose. The standard of prima facie case has been applied in this jurisdiction for over 55 years, at least in criminal cases, since the decision in Ramanlal Trambaklal Hatt V. Republic [1957] E.A. 332. 31.Recently, this court in Mrao Ltd. V. First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others [2003] KLR 125 fashioned a definition for “prima facie case” in civil cases in the following words: “In civil cases, a prima facie case is a case in which on the material presented to the court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter. A prima facie case is more than an arguable case. It is not sufficient to raise issues but the evidence must show an infringement of a right, and the probability of success of the applicant’s case upon trial. That is clearly a standard, which is higher than an arguable case.” 23.Has the applicant proven /established a prima facie case? To begin with, the applicant’s claim is to the effect that the plots numbers 5332, 9125 and 9126 Ruiri Rwarera Adjudication Section , emanated from plot number 296 – Ruiri Rwarera. However, the applicant herein has failed to appreciate that plot number 296 Ruiri Rwarera Adjudication section was the subject of a committee case and same was split into two portions, namely; plot number 296 – measuring 6.4 acres; and plot number 5332 – measuring 11 acres. 24.Furthermore, evidence abound that plot number 296 – measuring 6.4 acres, was adjudicated and registered in the name of Cornelius Muthamia Page 9 of 19

page 9 of 19

Ikiara [deceased]. The said plot does not appear to have been impacted by any subsequent transactions or objections. To this end, the evidence on record shows that plots numbers 9125 and 9126, respectively, did not emanate from plot number 296 – Ruiri Rwarera, in the manner posited by the Applicant. 25.On the contrary, plots numbers 9125 and 9126, respectively, are shown to have arisen from plot number 5332, which belonged to Esther Ntundu Ikiara. The sub-division of plot number 5332 and the creation of the 3 portions arising therefrom, are predicated upon a successful objection that was lodged in 2003 but determined in March, 2017. [See ground 7 of the application and paragraph 15 of the supporting affidavit]. 26.From what I have highlighted above, it means that the applicant is being dishonest and untruthful when same contends that plots numbers 9125 and 9126, arose from the mother plot, namely; plot number 296 – Measuring 6.4 acres. Such dishonesty negates exercise of equitable discretion in favour of an applicant. In any event, it is common ground that any applicant seeking to partake of equity, must come to court with clean hands. 27.Secondly, it is also important to underscore that the suit plots, namely; plots number 5332, 9125 and 9126 Ruiri/Rwarera adjudication section, were birthed by the adjudication process. The disputants filed objections to the land adjudication officer [Section 25 and 26 of the Land Adjudication Act]; and thereafter an appeal to the Cabinet Secretary in Page 10 of 19

page 10 of 19

terms of Section 29 of the Act. It then means that the claims [if any] by the applicant or her deceased father, terminated upon the conclusion of the adjudication process. 28.Additionally, it is important to highlight that if the applicant was aggrieved by the decision of the Minister/Cabinet Secretary [whatever the case], the applicant ought to have filed a judicial review to impugn the decision of the cabinet secretary. In any event, it is common ground that the applicant filed judicial review proceedings vide Meru ELC JR No. E002 of 2023, but which was dismissed. 29.Furthermore, it is not lost on me that even if the judicial review would have succeeded [which is not the case], the court could only quash the decision of the minister and revert the matter to the minister for reconsideration. Simply put, the court is not seized of the requisite mandate to ascertain and declare rights in respect of land falling under the adjudication process. The jurisdiction to ascertain such rights and to register same, belongs to the land adjudication. 30.Despite the foregoing, the petition by the applicant and her entire case, appears [I repeat appears] to be intended to invite this court to interrogate the ownership rights of the parties to the suit properties; ascertain the rights/interest; revoke the rights; and revert ownership rights in respect of the plots to the applicant, or to the Estate of her Father [Deceased]. Simply put, the applicant’s case is intent on inviting this court to undertake the adjudication exercise/ process; ascertain rights; and declare that the applicant owns the land. Page 11 of 19

page 11 of 19

31.I am not sure whether this Court or any other Court is seized of such jurisdiction. What I Know is to the effect that the courts retain a supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that the adjudication process is undertaken according to Law. And where a party is aggrieved by the decision made pursuant to the adjudication process, such a party has recourse vide Objection; Appeal; and lastly, Judicial review, as pertains to the decision of the Minister/ Cabinet Secretary of Lands, Housing , Public Works and Urban Development. 32.Nevertheless, the ascertainment of land or ownership rights, appears to belong to the Land Adjudication team. [See the holding in the case of Julia Kamburia versus Kabeere and 5 Others [2007] eklr-where the scope of the jurisdiction of the court was highlighted] 33.The other issue that flows from the applicant’s case relates to the endeavor by the applicant to negate the entire adjudication processes, which impacted upon plot number 296 -measuring 17.4 acres [being the original acreage]. However, it is worthy recalling that plot number 296 in its original form was affected by a land committee case which was lodged by Esther Ntundu Ikiara [See paragraph 11 and 12 of the supporting affidavit]. 34.It is common ground that the decision of the land committee, which led to the sub division of plot 296, was not objected to. The only way that the decision of the land committee could be impacted upon, is if there was an arbitration board complaint or better still, an objection to the land adjudication officer. That was not the case. The parties to the Land Page 12 of 19

page 12 of 19

Committee case appear [I say appear] to have been content/ satisfied with the Decision of the Land Committee, because neither of them filed any Arbitration case; objection. 35.Insofar as there was no such challenge, it is difficult to understand how the appellant would want the court to reverse the decision of the land committee and to [sic] and restore plot number 296 – measuring 17.4 acres [the original plot]. 36.Then there is the time lapse. The Land Committee case which affected the original parcel Number 296- Ruiri Rwarera, was heard and determined more than 30 years ago. No complaint was lodge. No action[s] were taken. Surely, the Applicant’s claim pertaining to that aspect of the case, appears to be defeated by doctrine of Laches. [See holding of the Court of Appeal in the case of Daniel Kibe Mutahi and 9 Others versus Attorney General [2019]eklr- where the court underscored the need to account for delay in the filing of a Petition] 37.I am afraid that the issues being raised by the applicant do not on the face of it [ex facie] disclose a prima facie case. In any event, it appears that the applicant herein is seeking to conflate various adjudication process including land committee; and the objection stage. It will, in my humble view, be a tall order to revert the times and restore the original plot 296. However, whether or not it will happen, shall await the plenary hearing. 38.Further, and in addition, the case by the applicant also brings to the fore a jurisdictional question. The question is: Whether this court in exercise of Page 13 of 19

page 13 of 19

its mandate can undertake the process of ascertaining and declaring ownership rights over land falling within an adjudication section. Simply put, can the court take it upon itself and say that the suit plots belong to the applicant, notwithstanding the subsisting decisions of: Land Committee; Objection proceedings; and decision of the minister, which are standing. [See the decision in the case of Tobias Acholla Osindi and 13 Others versus Cyprinius Otieno Ogalo and 6 Others [2013] eklr] 39.The other aspect that also lingers and which may [ I say may] impact upon proof of a prima facie case is whether or not the adjudication process in respect of the area has been fully concluded. The applicant has not explained whether the certificate of completion has ever been issued. Absent the certificate of completion, it then means that the applicant was obligated to procure the requisite consent from the land adjudication office [see Section 30 [1] of Land Adjudication Act, Chapter 284, Laws of Kenya]. 40.It is immaterial that what is before the court is a constitutional petition. If it transpires that the certificate of the completion of the process has not been issued, then Section 30 [1] of the Land Adjudication Act, [supra], may impact on the chances of success of the subject matter. 41.In the case of Ole Pere & another v District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Narok South & 24 others; Pere & another (Interested Parties) [2025] KECA 113 (KLR), the Court of Appeal highlighted the position thus: “Having concluded as herein above, we find no reason to determine the merits or otherwise of the appeal, save to underscore that the Page 14 of 19

page 14 of 19

failure to obtain consent as required by Section 31 (1) of the Land Adjudication Act was fatal to the appellants’ case because the mandatory requirements of the said Section cannot be cured by filing a constitutional petition as happened in this case. 42.Flowing from the foregoing, it must have become apparent that the applicant’s case does not appear to raise genuine and arguable issues. Suffice it to state that a prima facie case must raise genuine issues, worthy of investigations; and not otherwise. 43.I wish to point out that proof of a prima facie is critical in the process of pursuing an order of temporary injunction. Where the applicant fails to establish a prima facie case, a court of law is enjoined to terminate the process and to dismiss the application. 44. Additionally, it is imperative to underscore that the conditions to be proven in an endeavor to obtain an Order of temporary injunction are sequential in nature. One must surmount the hurdle of prima facie case, before venturing forward to deal with irreparable loss. 45.In the case of Nguruman Limited v Nielsen & 2 others [2014] KECA 606 (KLR), the Court of Appeal stated thus: “It is established that all the above three conditions and stages are to be applied as separate, distinct and logical hurdles which the applicant is expected to surmount sequentially. See Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd V. Afraha Education Society [2001] Vol. 1 EA 86. If the applicant establishes a prima facie case that alone is not sufficient basis to grant an interlocutory injunction, Page 15 of 19

page 15 of 19

the court must further be satisfied that the injury the respondent will suffer, in the event the injunction is not granted, will be irreparable.” 46.Turning to the issue of irreparable loss, it is important to recall that plot numbers 5232 and 9126, against which the injunction is sought were registered; and remain registered in the name[s] of 4 th and 5th respondents. The registration accrued way back in year 2017. The registration in question followed the determination of objections numbers 380, 1540 and 4016, respectively. The 4th and 5th respondents, are currently [I say currently] the adjudicated owners of the suit properties. 47.On the contrary the applicant herein is not the adjudicated owner of the suit properties. Moreover, Cornelius Muthamia [now deceased] was also not the adjudicated owner of the suit plot. The questions that do arise are: Can the Court grant an Order of Injunction as against the Registered Owner; and What loss will the applicant suffer? 48.I am afraid that the applicant herein has merely thrown assertions to the court, namely; that same shall suffer irreparable loss but which loss has neither been substantiated or proven. It is not enough to make assertions. The assertions must be justified on the basis of evidence. 49.Conversely, the issuance of the order of injunction would work injustice against the 4th and 5th respondents. Firstly, the named respondents are the adjudicated and registered owners of the suit plots. It then means that an Page 16 of 19

page 16 of 19

injunction shall be issued against the registered owner to deprive same of the right of using own land. 50.Secondly, the 4th and 5th respondents appear to be in occupation of the suit plots. This is because the applicant is seeking inter - alia, orders of eviction. The connotation is to the effect that the 4th and 5th respondents are in occupation. In this regard, an order of injunction cannot issue. [ See the decision in the case of The Headmaster, Kiembeni Baptist Primary School versus The Pastor, Kiembeni Baptist Church [2005] eklr]. Conclusion: 51.The Applicant herein sought to procure an order of temporary injunction. It was incumbent upon the applicant to establish the requisite conditions that underpin the grant of such an order. Importantly, the applicant was enjoined to prove the existence of a prima facie case; and thereafter irreparable loss. 52.Nevertheless, the applicant herein did not prove the existence of a prima facie case. On my assessment, the issues raised; and which underpin the claim before the court, do not espouse a prima facie case. The Petition from which the prima facie case is to be discerned appear[s] to be inflicted with several deficiencies. The import of such deficiencies can only be gone into during the plenary hearing. 53. Be that as it may, it suffice[s] to state that a prima facie case is underpinned by the existence of genuine and arguable issues, worthy of Page 17 of 19

page 17 of 19

interrogation during the plenary hearing. The matter beforehand does not strike me to espouse genuine and arguable Issue[s]. 54.Lastly, it must also be pointed out that whosoever seeks to partake of equity, must come to court with clean hands. In respect of the instant matter, the applicant herein did not come to court with clean hands. 55. The applicant attempted to mislead the court as to the source/origin of plot numbers 9125 and 9126, respectively. The two plots did not emanate from the original 296 – Ruiri Rwarera Adjudication Section. 56.In a nutshell, I come to the conclusion that the application dated the 11.06.2026 is devoid of merits. Consequently, same courts dismissal. Final orders: 57. In the end, the final orders that commend themselves to the court are: i. The Application dated 11.06.2026 be and is hereby Dismissed. ii. Costs of the Application be and are hereby awarded to the Respondents. iii. The costs in terms of clause [ii] shall be agreed upon and in default, be taxed in the conventional manner. 58.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU ON THIS 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026. OGUTTU MBOYA; FCIArb; CPM [MTI-EA]. JUDGE. Page 18 of 19

page 18 of 19

In the presence of Court Assistant: Zakayo. Mr. Kuria Karatu for the Petitioner /Applicant Ms. Miranda – Senior State Counsel for the 1 st, 2nd , 3rd , 6th and 7th Respondents Mr. Kiutha Arithi for the 4th and 5th Respondents Page 19 of 19

page 19 of 19