ICEA Lion Trust Company Limited & another v Wamalwa & others (Environment & Land Case E436 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4975 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner with a Certificate of Title won an injunction against trespassers who claimed the land was public property but brought no proof.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to orders of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the suit land pending the outcome of this suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case warranting an interlocutory injunction
The Plaintiffs, holding a Certificate of Title to the suit land, established a prima facie case against the Defendants who trespassed and deposited construction materials
The Plaintiffs produced a Certificate of Title as prima facie evidence of ownership. The 1st Defendant asserted the land was a road reserve compulsorily acquired for the Northern Bypass but produced no gazette notice, and claimed a KURA meeting confirmed this but produced no minutes. In the absence of contrary documentary evidence, the registered title prevailed at the interlocutory stage.
Whether irreparable harm and balance of convenience favoured an injunction
Yes - the Defendants' deposition of materials and threats to erect structures and subdivide would cause irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the Plaintiffs
The court accepted that the Defendants had deposited and threatened to erect illegal structures and purported to subdivide the land, acts which could not adequately be compensated by damages. Preservation of the suit land pending trial favoured the Plaintiffs, completing the Giella trilogy of conditions.
Legal principles established
#- A party asserting that land is public land or a road reserve must tender evidence such as a gazette notice to that effect; a bare assertion will not displace a Certificate of Title
- The Giella v Cassman Brown principles and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case govern the grant of interlocutory injunctions
Court orders
#- 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, an order of injunction issued restraining the Defendants by themselves, their agents, servants and in any manner howsoever from dealing with conveying, subdividing, encroaching or trespassing and or remaining on land parcel known as Nairobi Block 194/320 formerly L.R. No. 5989/6
- 2.The Officer Commanding Station, Runda Police Station to oversee the enforcement of the Court Orders issued
- 3.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over land matters (Environment and Land Court); specific enabling provision not cited in judgment
Relief refused
#Maintenance of status quo pending hearing and determination of the suit
The court instead granted the substantive injunction sought; no separate status quo order was made
Costs
Costs will 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.
That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, an Order of injunction is hereby issued restraining the Defendants either by themselves, their agents, servants and in any manner howsoever from dealing with conveying, subdividing, encroaching or trespassing and or remaining on land parcel of land known as Nairobi Block 194/320 formerly L.R. No. 5989/6.
I find that they have indeed established a prima facie case as against the Defendants, to warrant the orders of temporary injunction as sought.
The 1st Defendant insisted that the suit land is public land but did not tender any gazette notice to that efiect.
Costs will be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, the full names of the parties, or identify the Plaintiffs and Defendants beyond the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Plaintiff
Typographical inconsistencies in citation of Giella ('Giella v Cassman Brown Co. Ltd [1973') without closing citation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "ICEA Lion Trust Company Limited & another v Wamalwa & others (Environment & Land Case E436 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4975 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4975/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.