Joseph Kabiri Mburugu & 2 others v Jeremiah Kamathi Kairanya (Sued as the Legal Representative of the estate of M'Mukindia M'Kairanya also known as Lawrence Kairanya M'Mukindia – Deceased)

opposed the application. The said application is the subject of this ruling. The key issue falling for determination in the ruling is whether the application meets the criteria upon which a trial court exercises jurisdiction to grant an ordinary interlocutory injunction in the nature of an inhibition order. Before I analyze and dispose the issue, I will outline the parties’ respective cases. Applicants’ Case 2. The application was premised on the grounds set out in the motion and in the supporting affidavit sworn on 25/2/2026 by Joseph Kabiri Mburugu. It was canvassed through written submissions dated 8/7/2026, filed by M/s Murango Mwenda & Co. Advocates. The case of the applicants is that, they have been in adverse possession of land parcel number Nyaki/Kithoka/1722 [the suit land] since 1993. The suit land is in danger of being disposed to third parties. The suit land is at the moment the subject matter of distribution in High Court Succession Cause No 2 of 2020 relating to the estate of the late Lawrence Kairanya M’Mukindia alias M’Mukindia M’Kairanya, who is the current registered owner of the land. 3. They contend that they have discovered that the respondent had applied for confirmation of the grant, prosecuted the application, and subsequently obtained a certificate of confirmation of grant. They are apprehensive that the certificate of confirmation of grant would be implemented at any time, resulting in the disposal of the suit land to the beneficiaries identified in the confirmed grant. They add that although an inhibition was ELCL (OS) NO E015 OF 2024 2 (RULING) issued by the succession court Page

page 2 of 8

and was registered against the suit land, it was to abide disposal of the succession cause and the cause has now been disposed. They urge the court to preserve the suit land by issuing an inhibition. 4. The applicants contend that they have met the legal threshold for granting an inhibition, adding that without the inhibition order, they will suffer substantial prejudice that may not adequately be compensated by an award of damages. They add that implementation of the confirmed grant would alter the land register by introducing new registered proprietors and will expose the suit property to further dealings, including transfers, subdivisions or charges. They argue that an order of inhibition is necessary to prevent the present proceedings from being rendered nugatory or academic. Respondent’s Case 5. The respondent opposed the application through a replying affidavit dated 15/6/2026. His case is that the application is bad due to duplicity. He terms it as a waste of the court's time. He argues that the register relating to the suit land already bears an inhibition registered on 27/8/2020 pursuant to an order issued on 27/7/2020 in Meru HC Succession Cause No 2 of 2020. 6. He further contends that the succession cause remains pending, particularly in view of the pending application dated 23/10/2025 seeking revocation and/or annulment of the confirmed grant issued on 15/9/2025. In his view, given the issues raised in ELCL (OS) NO E015 OF 2024 3 the application (RULING) dated 15/9/2025, Page the

page 3 of 8

succession proceedings are unlikely to be concluded before determination of the present matter. 7. He submits that, in the interest of expeditious disposal of the matter, the main suit ought to be set down for hearing and determination without further delay. He contends that granting the application would result in duplication of court orders, given that an inhibition had already been issued and registered against the suit property. He urges the Court to dismiss the application with costs for lack of merit. Analysis and Determination 8. The court has considered the application; the response to the application; and the submissions tendered on the application. By and large, an inhibition order is an interlocutory prohibitory injunction barring the registration of dealings in a specified land register, pending the hearing and disposal of a suit. Consequently, the key issue to be determined in this ruling is whether the application under consideration meets the criteria upon which a trial court exercises jurisdiction to grant an ordinary interlocutory injunction. 9. Secondly, an order of inhibition is expressly provided for under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act. It is issued by a court to bar the registration of any transaction in a land register until further orders of the court or until the suit is disposed. The court issuing the order must be satisfied that the applicant has good grounds to warrant the issuance of an order of inhibition. The purpose of the order of inhibition is to preserve the suit land pending further orders by the court or pending disposal of the suit. ELCL (OS) NO E015 OF 2024 4 (RULING) Page

page 4 of 8

10. The relevant criteria on the exercise of jurisdiction of a trial court to grant an ordinary interlocutory injunction was outlined by the Court of Appeal for East Africa in the case of Giella v Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358. First, the applicant is required to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success. Second, the applicant is required to demonstrate that if the plea for an interlocutory injunction is declined, he will stand to suffer injury that may not be adequately indemnifiable through an award of damages. Thirdly, should the court have doubt on either or both of the above, the application is to be determined on the basis of the balance of convenience. 11. Over the years, our superior courts have developed a fourth principle to the effect that, at the stage of disposing the plea for interlocutory injunction, the court should refrain from making conclusive or definitive pronouncements on the key issues in the dispute. The courts have emphasized that definitive and conclusive pronouncements/findings should be reserved for the final disposal of the dispute. 12. The Court of Appeal defined a prima facie case in Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others (Civil Appeal 39 of 2002) [2003] KECA 175 (KLR) (7 March 2003) (Judgment) as follows:“A prima facie case in a civil application includes but is not confined to a “genuine and arguable case.” It is a case which, on the material presented to the court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that ELCL (OS) NO E015 OF 2024 5 (RULING) Page

page 5 of 8

there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter”. 13. Does the present application meet the above criteria? In the application under consideration, the presence of the applicants on the suit land has not been contested. What has been contested is the plea for inhibition orders to preserve the subsisting status quo in terms of the land register relating to the suit land. The respondent deposed that the suit land is already subject to an inhibition order issued on 27/7/2020 in Meru High Court Succession Cause No 2 of 2020, which was registered against the title on 27/8/2020. He contends that granting a further inhibition order over the same property would amount to unnecessary duplication and a waste of the court’s time. He further argues that although a certificate of confirmation of grant was issued on 15/9/2025, the succession cause remains pending by virtue of an application dated 23/10/2025 seeking revocation and/or annulment of the said certificate of confirmation of grant. 14. The court notes that a certificate of confirmation of grant has already been issued, meaning that the succession cause has essentially been disposed. On the face of the exhibited confirmed grant, it is clear that the respondent invited the succession court to deal with the suit land as a free asset of the deceased. At this stage, the preceding inhibition is spent because there circumstances, subsists a confirmed grant. In the there is need to preserve the suit land through a fresh order of inhibition. ELCL (OS) NO E015 OF 2024 6 (RULING) Page

page 6 of 8

15. Thirdly, a succession court does not deal with land ownership disputes. It merely distributes the deceased’s free assets. The court vested with jurisdiction to deal with ownership disputes relating to land is the Environment and Land Court. This is the court to preserve the suit land through an order of inhibition pending the hearing and disposal of the current land ownership dispute. 16. Fourthly, the plaintiff has demonstrated that they have been in possession of the suit land. Whether their possession meets the criteria for crystallization of title under the doctrine of adverse possession is a question to be answered after trial. Suffice it to state that, at this interlocutory stage, the plaintiffs have demonstrated a prima facie case of adverse possession. 17. On irreparable damage/injury, disposal of the suit land through registration of dealings will ultimately lead to eviction of the plaintiffs and will prolong the effectual and timely hearing and determination of this dispute. 18. The balance of convenience favours preservation of the suit land by barring registration of any dealings, including succession orders such as a certificate of confirmation of grant procured by any party on the premise that the suit land is a free asset of the deceased available for distribution by a succession court. 19. For the above reasons, the application dated 25/2/2026 is found to meet the criteria upon which a trial court exercises jurisdiction to grant an ordinary interlocutory injunction in the nature of an inhibition order. Consequently, the application is ELCL (OS) NO E015 OF 2024 7 (RULING) Page

page 7 of 8

allowed in terms of prayer 3. Costs of the application shall be in the cause. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026. B M EBOSO [MR] ELC JUDGE In the Presence of: Joseph Mburugu – 1st Plaintiff – Present in Person. Alice Mburugu – 3rd Plaintiff – Present in Person. Mr Murimi – Now present for the Plaintiffs. Court Assistant – E. Tupet ELCL (OS) NO E015 OF 2024 8 (RULING) Page

page 8 of 8