Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the excerpt (Notice of Motion dated 2nd December, 2024)

Odada v Odada (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4784 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 June 2025
EAE. Asati
1,116 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kisumu Environment and Land Court dismissed a landowner's injunction bid because they couldn't prove they were using or occupying the disputed land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2024 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from trespassing on, encroaching, demolishing structures on, alienating or wasting 0.10Ha forming part of parcel Kisumu/Wawidhi "B"/438. The Applicant claimed he bought the land in 2003 under a sale agreement dated 3rd April 2003 and had been in occupation until the Respondent fenced off the portion, allegedly destroying crops. The Respondent, the registered owner since 1st August 2019 having purchased from Paul Ochieng Rete, countered that the Plaintiff was an encroacher without possession who had failed to demonstrate a prima facie case. Written submissions were filed by both firms. The court, applying Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Giella v Cassman Brown test (prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience), found the Applicant did not live on the land but only cultivated it. The official search confirmed registration in the Respondent's name, and the boundary dispute report showed the proprietor of parcel 6764 had ploughed parcels 438 and 439. The court found no evidence of crops on the land at the time of filing suit and held that the grounds for a temporary injunction had not been demonstrated. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent. Ruling dated and signed at Kisumu and read virtually on 26th June 2025.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success
  2. 2.Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages
  3. 3.Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the temporary injunction

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Giella criteria for a temporary injunction were met

Holding

The grounds for granting a temporary injunction were not demonstrated and the application was dismissed

Reasoning

The Applicant did not live on the suit land but only cultivated it. The official search showed the parcel registered in the Defendant's name since 1st August 2019. The boundary dispute report indicated the proprietor of parcel 6764, not the Applicant, had ploughed parcels 438 and 439, and there was no evidence of crops on the land at filing of suit.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • For an interlocutory injunction, the applicant must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages, and failing which the balance of convenience

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to the Respondent

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

EA
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction; interlocutory application under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

Relief refused

#

Temporary injunction restraining trespass, encroachment, demolition, alienation or wasting of 0.10Ha forming part of Kisumu/Wawidhi "B"/438

The grounds for granting a temporary injunction were not demonstrated; no evidence that the Applicant had crops on the land as at the time of filing suit

p. 3

Costs

Costs to the Respondent

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.

The court finds that the grounds for granting of a temporary injunction have not been demonstrated. The application is dismissed. Costs to the Respondent. Orders accordingly.
p. 3Final orders - dismissal and costs
I find no evidence that the Applicant had crops on the land as at the time of filing suit.
p. 3Failure to demonstrate irreparable harm

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The case number/suit reference of the originating suit is not stated in the judgment excerpt provided

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Odada v Odada (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4784 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt (Notice of Motion dated 2nd December, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4784/eng@2025-06-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.