Ariga (Suing through its Executrix Emily Mayukuba Juma) v Luyegu (Environment & Land Case E023 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4638 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega froze all dealings on a Kshs 48 million plot, protecting a long-term occupant from eviction until the ownership dispute is fully heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this suit is res judicata in view of the ruling in Kakamega CMC Misc. Application No. E061 of 2021 of 6th September, 2024
- 2.Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of temporary injunction and inhibition in regard to the suit property
Key legal issues
#Res judicata
The suit is not res judicata because the former misc. application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction; ownership was never determined on merit.
The former Kakamega CMC Misc. ruling did not determine whether the applicant owned the suit property by purchase or adverse possession; the lower court held it lacked jurisdiction, which belonged to the ELC. Res judicata requires a final determination on the merits by a competent court. Since the substantive issues were not decided with finality, the doctrine does not bar this suit.
Temporary injunction
A prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience were all established; injunction granted.
The applicant's occupation and development of the property is conceded, raising an arguable claim of purchase and adverse possession. The property is valued at about Kshs 48 million, so damages may not adequately compensate. The respondent is registered proprietor, but the applicant's long occupation tilts the balance of convenience towards preserving possession pending trial.
Inhibition order
An inhibition order under section 68 of the Land Registration Act issued to preserve the substratum of the suit.
Section 68 empowers the court to inhibit registration of dealings with land for a particular time, until an event, or until further order. Given the applicant's prima facie case and Kshs 48 million worth of buildings, it is fair and just to freeze title dealings pending determination to maintain the substratum of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- A suit is not res judicata where the former court declined jurisdiction and the issues were not determined with finality or on merit.
- Temporary injunction requires a prima facie case with chances of success, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience.
- An inhibition order may issue to maintain the status of a title in the interests of justice pending determination of a suit.
Court orders
#- 1.Interim orders of injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent, her heirs, representatives, agents, assigns or any other persons acting on her behalf, from evicting, demolishing, alienating, charging, dealing, disposing, entering, trespassing, erecting or pulling down structures or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff/Applicant's and the estate's tenants' peaceful possession and occupation of L.R. Butsotso/Indangalasia/6XX6 pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.An order of inhibition inhibiting the registration of any dealings whatsoever in regard to title for parcel No. Butsotso/Indangalasia/6XX6 pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 68 of the Land Registration Act
Relief refused
#Preservation of the status quo obtaining as at 25th October 2024 (prayer f)
The court granted the substantive injunction and inhibition orders instead; no separate status quo order appears in the final orders.
Costs
The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
An order of inhibition is hereby issued inhibiting the registration of any dealings whatsoever in regard to title for parcel No. Butsotso/Indangalasia/6XX6 pending hearing and determination of this suit.
That pending the hearing and determination of the main suit filed herewith, the Court is hereby issues interim orders of injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent, her heirs, representatives, agents, assigns, or any other persons acting under her authority or on her behalf, from evicting, demolishing, alienation, charging, dealing, disposing, entering, trespassing
The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
For those reasons, I find and hold that this suit is not res judicata.
Where it is necessary to maintain the status of a title in the interests of justice, an inhibition order may issue.
Issues in the judgment
#The issue for determination misdates the former misc. application as 'E061 of 2021' while the body of the judgment refers to 'Kakamega MCCCMISC Case No. E61 of 2024' and the ruling of 6th September 2024.
The final orders state the application is 'dated 25th October 2025' whereas the application itself is dated 25th October 2024.
The numbering of the final orders is irregular, repeating '25.' after paragraph 27 and restarting at 'a.' twice.
The judgment inconsistently refers to the applicant as both 'he' and 'she'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ariga (Suing through its Executrix Emily Mayukuba Juma) v Luyegu (Environment & Land Case E023 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4638 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 25th October 2024 (ELC suit, Kakamega). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4638/eng@2025-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.