Adongo v Ogola (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of the Olero Akumu) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E041 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8556 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to stop land dealings because the claimant proved neither ownership nor actual occupation of the disputed parcel.
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'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 a temporary injunction founded on adverse possession
No - the applicant proved neither ownership nor occupation of the suit property
The court invoked Order 40 Rule 1 CPR and the Giella v Cassman Brown test as elaborated in Nguruman and Mrao. To resolve conflicting accounts of occupation, the court suo motu called the area Assistant Chief, who testified on oath that the defendant, not the plaintiff, is in occupation and has been planting crops including cassava. On that evidence, the applicant, claiming adverse possession, failed to show possession of the land for the requisite period, hence no prima facie case.
Whether the remaining Giella limbs (irreparable loss, balance of convenience) should be considered
No - once the prima facie case fails, the sequential test ends there
Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Nguruman Limited v Jan Nielsen, the court held that the limbs of the Giella test are sequential; where a prima facie case is not established, the court does not evaluate irreparable injury or balance of convenience. The applicant having failed at the first hurdle, the inquiry could not proceed further and the application fell to be dismissed with costs to the applicant.
Legal principles established
#- Where no prima facie case is established, the court need not consider irreparable injury and balance of convenience
- An applicant for interlocutory relief who is neither registered owner nor in occupation has not established a prima facie case
Court orders
#- 1.Prayers 3 and 4 of the Notice of Motion dated 19th September 2025 are disallowed
- 2.The plaintiff/applicant shall bear the costs of the application
- 3.Suit to be mentioned for directions under Order 11 of the CPR on 10th February 2026
- 4.Parties to file and exchange trial bundles within thirty (30) days of the ruling
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, 2010
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the defendant from entering, cultivating, surveying, transferring, disposing of, alienating, erecting structures on or interfering with the plaintiff's occupation of LR South Sakwa/Waware/233 pending hearing of the main suit
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, being neither the registered owner nor in occupation of the suit property
Direction to the OCS Sony Police Station and area administration to ensure compliance with the injunction order
Fails with the principal prayer, which was disallowed
Costs
The plaintiff/applicant shall bear the costs of the 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, this plaintifi's/applicant's application dated 19th September 2025 is without merit and prayers 3 and 4 thereof are hereby disallowed. The plaintifi/applicant shall bear the costs of the application
Since he is neither the registered owner nor in occupation this court cannot envision how he can be said to have established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
If prima facie case is not established, then irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no consideration.
The suit shall be mentioned for directions under Order 11 of the CPR on 10th February 2026. The parties are directed to file and exchange trial bundles within the next thirty (30) days of this ruling.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to a prior suit over the same subject matter as 'ELCOS No. 28 of 2028', an apparently erroneous future year
Suit land parcel inconsistently spelled 'South Sakwa Waware/233' and 'South Sakwa/Wawere/233' within the judgment
No title page identifying case number, parties' names or court station; coram limited to signature block
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adongo v Ogola (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of the Olero Akumu) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E041 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8556 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case (Notice of Motion dated 19th September 2025), Homa Bay ELC. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8556/eng@2025-12-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.