Ogola v Awendo & 2 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E037 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6745 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 plaintiff/applicant's application is merited
- 2.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case for interlocutory injunction
The court found a prima facie case in the adverse possession claim, given evidence of occupation since 2013 and the 1st Respondent's own schedule of distribution indicating the applicant was due 3 acres from the estate
The Chief testified that the plaintiff had occupied and used the land since 2013 and that the defendants only moved onto it in July 2025. The applicant annexed photographs, a Chief's letter acknowledging a sale, and the Summons for Confirmation of Grant showing he was to receive 3 acres. Together these demonstrated an apparent infringement of a right warranting an explanation from the respondents and a probability of success at trial.
Whether irreparable harm not compensable by damages existed
Damages were not an appropriate remedy for land claimed by adverse possession, given the uniqueness of land and possible sentimental value
Relying on Panari Enterprises v Lijoodi, the court reasoned that land is unique and, if dispossessed, the applicant may never recover the land, since an occupier may perform acts on the land that change its character. The sentimental value the applicant may have developed over the property also weighed against compensating him in damages.
Where the balance of convenience lay
The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, who stood to lose more if the injunction were refused
The applicant had annexed evidence of economic activities and developments on the property, whereas the respondents had not. The Chief confirmed the plaintiff had been in occupation until the 1st Defendant's sudden recent entry. Refusing the injunction would cause the applicant greater inconvenience than granting it would cause the respondents.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case with possibility of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience - each hurdle passed sequentially
- Land is unique and damages are not always a suitable remedy where the plaintiff has established a clear legal right
- Costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court for good reason otherwise orders
Court orders
#- 1.Interim injunction issued forbidding, barring and prohibiting the Respondents, their agents, assigns and representatives from threatening and interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of portions of land parcels Kanyamwa/Kayambo/Kwamo/5889, 5890 and 5892 pending hearing and determination of the suit inter partes
- 2.The injunction shall last twelve months and may be extended on application with reasons given by the Applicant
- 3.The defendants shall bear the costs of the application
- 4.Mention on 26th November 2025 to confirm compliance with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
- 5.Parties given thirty (30) days to file trial bundles and exchange
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40, 48 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; sections 1A, 1B and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 37, 40 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunction expressed to run until the main suit is heard and determined
The court limited the duration of the injunction to twelve months rather than until determination of the suit
Costs
The defendants shall bear the costs of this application
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.
Accordingly, I find that the application is merited. I hereby allow it in terms of prayers 3 and 4 to the efiect that is hereby issued an injunction forbidding, barring and prohibiting the Respondents either by themselves, any of their agents, assigns, and representatives from threatening and interfering with the plaintifi's peaceful possession of a portion of land parcel numbers Kanyamwa/kayambo/kwamo/5889, 5890 and 5892 pending the hearing and determination of the suit inter partes.
The injunction issued herein shall last twelve months and may be extended on an application being made, for reasons to be given by the Applicant.
Accordingly, the defendants shall bear the costs of this application.
This leads this Court to conclude that the plaintifi/applicant has proved a prima facie case.
if the injunction is not granted, the plaintifi/ applicant stands to lose more than the defendants/respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Applicant's deposition states he bought the 3 acres in the year 2000 in the application but in the year 2005 in the supporting affidavit and Chief's letter
Occupation period stated inconsistently as 20 years in the application and 25 years in the plaintifi's averments
Replying Affidavit sworn on 15th July 2024 yet relates to an application dated 20th June 2025
Court refers to 'Section 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010' and 'Order 11' inconsistently with the application citing Order 40; also cites injunction test under 'Orders 37, 40' while the deponent's occupation periods are contradictory
Obituary-style references to 'Ndhiwa Succession Cause no. 20 of 2017' and a second letter in Dholuo left untranscribed without resolution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogola v Awendo & 2 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E037 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6745 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated (application dated 20th June 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6745/eng@2025-10-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.