Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 7528 (KLR)

Registered Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya v County Government of Kisumu (Land Case E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7528 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 October 2025
EAE. Asati
2,784 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kisumu Environment and Land Court restrained the County Government from interfering with Mamboleo Showground, confirming registered owners' rights trump unsupported public-land claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu (E. Asati, J) determined the Plaintiff's application dated 8th January 2025 under Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant, the County Government of Kisumu, from interfering with its peaceful possession of L.R. 18042 (Mamboleo Showground). The Plaintiff alleged that in August 2024 the Governor and County officials forcibly entered the premises, vandalised property, tore down partition walls, removed the Plaintiff's logo and welded its gate shut, and that despite termination of the parties' Memorandum of Understanding of 16th September 2020, the County continued to occupy and use the property. The Respondent opposed, contending the land was public land developed with substantial public funds for a stadium and associated facilities, that the MOU remained operative and permitted its use, and that the balance of convenience favoured the public's continued access. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions, the court found the Plaintiff, as registered proprietor, had demonstrated a prima facie case: it alone exhibited ownership documents and photographs of damage, and no evidence showed the land was public land. Relying on section 24 of the Land Registration Act and Article 40 of the Constitution, the court held the Plaintiff entitled to protection of its property rights pending trial. The court granted a temporary injunction but qualified it, permitting the Defendant to act under a valid MOU or with the Plaintiff's express permission, and awarded costs of the application to the applicant. The judgment did not disturb any prior decision; it decides an interlocutory application in the first instance.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case

Holding

The Applicant, as registered owner exhibiting documents of ownership and photographs of damage, established a prima facie case of infringement of proprietary rights

Reasoning

The court noted only the plaintiff exhibited ownership documents and photographs of damage. The Respondent's assertion that the land is public land was unsupported by any evidence. Section 24 of the Land Registration Act and Article 40 of the Constitution protect the registered owner, entitling the plaintiff to protection of its property rights pending full hearing.

p. 5
02

Whether irreparable harm and balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction

Holding

The court found the application merited, holding that refusal would expose the plaintiff to considerable interim damage while the order would preserve the substratum of the suit

Reasoning

The court invoked Order 40 Rule 1's purpose of protecting suit property from destruction or alienation. It accepted the plaintiff's position that an injunction would maintain respect for its property rights without wholly denying the Respondent use of facilities, since the parties could continue under the MOU or a lawful arrangement acceptable to the plaintiff.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A registered proprietor of land enjoys prima facie proprietary rights entitled to judicial protection pending trial
  • Registration under the Land Registration Act vests absolute ownership of land in the registered person

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Unless acting in accordance with a valid Memorandum of Understanding between the parties or with the express permission of the Plaintiff, the Defendant/Respondent, its agents, servants or employees are restrained by an order of temporary injunction from claiming, conducting any activities/events on, leasing, charging, advertising for lease and/or sale, constructing on or in any other manner interfering with the Applicant's peaceful possession of L.R. 18042 (Mamboleo Showground) or any portion thereof pending hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the applicant
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Registered Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya v County Government of Kisumu (Land Case E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7528 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7528/eng@2025-10-30

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