Anjuri v Kagendo & another (Sued as the Legal Representatives or Administrators of the Estate of Guantai Kwaria) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 113 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped an estate from evicting a woman who has occupied disputed land for nearly 30 years, until her adverse possession claim is fully tried.
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 application meets the criteria upon which a trial court exercises jurisdiction to grant an ordinary interlocutory injunction (prima facie case, irreparable damage, balance of convenience)
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff satisfied the criteria for an interlocutory injunction
The application was determined on the balance of convenience, which favoured the plaintiff given her long, uncontested possession and development of the land since 1997.
Purchase, payment of the purchase price and occupation since 1997 were uncontested; only whether possession was adverse was contested. As that key issue must be reserved for trial, the court declined definitive findings and assessed the balance of convenience. Uprooting the plaintiff from land occupied and developed for nearly 30 years tipped the balance in her favour, justifying the injunction.
Legal principles established
#- The criteria for an interlocutory injunction are a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable damage not compensable by damages, and, in doubt, the balance of convenience.
- At the interlocutory stage, a court should not make definitive and conclusive pronouncements on key issues in the dispute.
Court orders
#- 1.The application is allowed in terms of prayers 3 and 4, granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the administrators of the estate from interfering with the plaintiff's possession, occupation and utilization of parcel number Abothuguchi/Gaitu/1279 pending the hearing and disposal of the originating summons
- 2.Costs shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land and adverse possession disputes (originating summons under the Limitation of Actions regime)
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.
In the end, for the above reasons, the application dated 8/7/2025 is allowed in terms of prayers 3 and 4. Costs shall be in the cause.
Given the above circumstances, the court takes the view that this application merits determination on the basis of the balance of convenience.
Definitive and conclusive pronouncements on key issues are to be reserved for the final disposal of the dispute.
Issues in the judgment
#The court's final order refers to the application as dated 8/7/2025, but the motion was introduced as dated 8/4/2025; 8/7/2025 is the date of the respondent's replying affidavit.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anjuri v Kagendo & another (Sued as the Legal Representatives or Administrators of the Estate of Guantai Kwaria) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 113 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons dated 28/3/2025; Notice of Motion dated 8/4/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/113/eng@2026-01-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.