Odera & 6 others (Suing on their own Behalf and on Behalf of all Members of the Kogony Community Claiming Registrable Interest in the Land known as C/18 Scheme) v Gitonga & 5 others (Environment & Land Case E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4997 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu blocked the sale or development of five disputed Kogony plots, protecting beneficiaries with an older court judgment in their favour.
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 Applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success warranting a temporary injunction
- 2.Whether an unopposed application for injunction should be allowed on the material placed before the court
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success
The court found that the Applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success based on the prior judgment in Kisumu ELC No. 146 of 2012 in their favour and evidence of ongoing construction.
The court noted the judgment in ELC No. 146 of 2012 which adjudged the suit land in favour of the Applicants and directed cancellation of titles. It also saw photographs showing construction of a perimeter wall in progress. The application was unopposed, with no response filed and no attendance by the Respondents despite proper service. On that material, the court found the application merited and allowed it.
Legal principles established
#- An unopposed injunction application may be allowed where the material before the court demonstrates a prima facie case with a probability of success.
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the 1st-7th Defendants, their servants, agents or proxies from alienating, selling, offering for sale, transferring, surveying or subdividing the parcels including L.R. Nos. 27677, 27678, 27679, 27680 and 27681 or dealing with them pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs awarded to the Applicants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 3, Order 20 Rule 1, Order 51 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Laws of Kenya
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 application was unopposed. On the basis of the material placed before the court, the court finds that the Applicants have demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success. The court finds that the application has merit and hereby allows it. Costs are awarded to the Applicants.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the present suit is not stated anywhere in the ruling; only the related case Kisumu ELC No. 146 of 2012 is identified.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odera & 6 others (Suing on their own Behalf and on Behalf of all Members of the Kogony Community Claiming Registrable Interest in the Land known as C/18 Scheme) v Gitonga & 5 others (Environment & Land Case E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4997 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the ruling (related: Kisumu ELC No. 146 of 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4997/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.