Mulongo v Wanjala (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E020 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6936 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega refused to stop a registered landowner from dealing with his land because the 12-year adverse possession clock had not run.
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 applicant has met the threshold for grant of a temporary injunction
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the Giella v Cassman Brown threshold for a temporary injunction
No. The applicant could not demonstrate a prima facie case of adverse possession because the 12-year limitation period had not run against the respondent's title, which was founded on a 2019 judgment and registration in 2022
The court held that while adverse possession is an overriding interest under section 28 of the Land Registration Act, the respondent's title arose from a final judgment in Kakamega ELC No. 36 of 2018 determining adverse possession in his favour, followed by registration. The period from that determination/registration to the filing of this suit in 2025 falls far short of the 12 years prescribed by sections 7 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
Whether the injunction could issue against a registered proprietor
A registered proprietor enjoys absolute and indefeasible title under sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act, subject only to overriding interests under section 28, including rights acquired under the Limitation of Actions Act
The court reproduced sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act confirming the conclusiveness of certificate of title, and noted section 28(h) and (j) overriding interests for prescriptive rights. It held that the registered owner's rights cannot be interfered with without lawful justification, and any adverse-possession-based claim must satisfy the limitation threshold on the applicant's material.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant seeking an injunction over land registered in another's name on the basis of adverse possession must establish a prima facie case of adverse possession with chances of success, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience
- Without a prima facie case, inquiry into irreparable injury and balance of convenience is unnecessary
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 28th April 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (inherent power to grant temporary injunctions pending suit)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction prohibiting the respondent from selling, transferring, leasing or interfering with the applicant's occupation, use, stay and access of LR No. North Wanga/Khalaba/1801 pending hearing and determination of the suit
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of adverse possession with likelihood of success; the 12-year limitation period could not run from the 2019 judgment and 2022 registration in the respondent's favour up to the filing of this suit in 2025
Costs
Application dismissed with 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.
Ultimately, I find no merit in the application dated 28th April 2025 which I hereby dismiss with costs to the respondent.
It is so ordered.
In the absence of a prima facie case, whether or not there is irreparable injury and where the balance of convenience tilts is immaterial, because irreparable injury can only be anchored on a prima facie case.
prescriptive rights created under the Limitation of Actions Act including claims of adverse possession are overriding interests which registered land is subject to
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to the Limitation of Actions Act as 'the Law of Limitations Act' in paragraph 24, an inconsistent name for the same statute
The judgment's own case number is not stated on the face of the extracted judgment text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulongo v Wanjala (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E020 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6936 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 28th April 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6936/eng@2025-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.