Registered Trustees Pentecostal Assemblies of God v Seventh Day Adventist

plaintiff’s peaceful occupation evicting, alienating, trespassing or dealing in any manner with a portion parcel of land known as LR NO 90242/716 measuring 0.0418 Ha currently occupied by the plaintiff pending hearing and determination of this suit. d) Costs of the application. 2. The application was premised on grounds as in the supporting of Stanford Okaka where he deponed that the plaintiff came into possession of the suit property in the year 1981 and are still in possession to date, where they conduct their church services. That the said possession and occupancy was confirmed by an allotment letter from the Nairobi City council dated 21st January 2000. 3. THAT the first Defendant is the registered owner of the suit property but has never laid claim to it since the plaintiff took possession up until the year 2023 when the Defendant sought to have them evicted and has since then been making efforts to evict them. 4. THAT the Applicant has by virtue of open uninterrupted possession since the year 1981 has therefore acquired the property by ways of adverse possession hence this application to restrain the Defendants from the plaintiff’s peaceful occupation. 5. The 1st Defendant opposed the application via the replying affidavit sworn by Philip Nyaucho Bosire. He deponed that 1 st Defendant is the registered owner of the suit property and had been in occupation of the same for close to 20 years which was public knowledge. He deponed that upon receiving the certificate of title they issued notices to the Applicant to vacate the suit property, but the same was ignored. He 2 ELCLOS E058 OF 2025 R

page 2 of 6

further deponed that the Applicant had not met the conditions necessary for issuance of injunctive orders. 6. As at the time of drafting this ruling, only the Applicant had submitted in submissions dated 20th January 2026 reiterating the contents in its supporting affidavit. He further submitted that the 1 st Defendant was in the process of carrying out and eviction and hence would suffer irreparable harm if the same is allowed. Analysis and determination 7. Having considered the pleadings, the Replying Affidavit, and the submission of the Applicant, the Court finds that the only substantive issue for determination is whether the Applicant is entitled to the injunctive orders. 8. The conditions governing the grant of an interlocutory injunction in this jurisdiction are firmly anchored in the celebrated East African decision of Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd 1973 EA 358 where the Court pronounced that an Applicant must first establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, secondly demonstrate that he stands to suffer irreparable injury that would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages, and thirdly, that if the Court is in doubt on the foregoing, the application ought to be determined on the balance of convenience. These three conditions have since been consistently applied by our Courts as the governing standard for injunctive relief. 3 ELCLOS E058 OF 2025 R

page 3 of 6

9. The threshold for establishing a prima facie case was authoritatively settled by the Court of Appeal in Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya & 2 Others (2003) KLR 125 where the Court held that a prima facie case is one in which, on the material presented before the Court, a tribunal properly directing its mind will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter. This Court is in full agreement with that formulation and adopts it as the applicable standard 10. In the present case, the Applicant sees injunctive orders on the basis that they have been in open uninterrupted occupation of the suit property since 1981.They have however not produced any evidence to back ist claim other than an allotment letter which in itself not a document conferring ownership. There is no proof of a prima facie case in this instance as captured in the case law above. No irreparable harm has equally been demonstrated as the eviction is a lawful exercise that the 1 st Defendant will have rights to pursue being the registered owner of the suit property as evidenced by certificate of title. Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012, provides that a Certificate of Title issued by the Registrar shall be taken by all Courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor is the absolute and indefeasible owner, subject only to challenge on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation . 4 ELCLOS E058 OF 2025 R

page 4 of 6

11. The conditions set out in the Giella vs Cassman Brown Case (Supra) are to be considered sequentially. In so finding, I am persuaded by the holding in the case of Nguruman Limited Vs Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR where the Court of Appeal stated as follows: -“these are the three pillars on which rest the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent. It is established that all the above three conditions and stages are to be applied as separate, distinct and logical hurdles which the Applicant to surmount sequentially… if the Applicant is expected establishes a prima facie case that alone is not sufficient basis to grant an interlocutory injunction, the court must further be satisfied that the injury the Respondent will suffer, in the event the injunction is not granted will be irreparable. In other words, if damages recoverable in law are an adequate remedy and the Respondent is capable of paying, no interlocutory order of injunction should normally be granted, however strong the Applicant’s claim may appear at that stage. If a prima facie case is not established, then irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no consideration”. 12. Having found that the Applicant has not established a prima facie case with a probability of success, neither have they proved how irreparable loss will be occasioned to them, then it goes without saying that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the registered owners of the property being the 1st Defendant, and such all the limbs required to grant injunctive orders have not been met. Final disposition 5 ELCLOS E058 OF 2025 R

page 5 of 6

13. The upshot of the above is that the Application dated 22nd September 2025 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The costs will be in the cause. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED via e-mail at NAIROBI on this 15th day of July 2026. MOHAMMED N. KULLOW JUDGE 6 ELCLOS E058 OF 2025 R

page 6 of 6