Shapaya v Lukhumwa (Administrator of the Estate of Teresina Etambo Lukhumwa) (Environment and Land Case E036 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 295 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kakamega Environment and Land Court dismissed a land buyer's bid to block dealings on parcel Isukha/Shirere/535 because he could not prove actual possession for 12 years.
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 deserves orders of inhibition, and
- 2.Whether the applicant has met the conditions for grant of temporary injunction pending hearing and determination of this suit.
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with chances of success for a temporary injunction
No prima facie case demonstrated
The applicant, who claimed rights under adverse possession, failed to state when his occupation began, the manner or exclusivity of his possession, or provide evidence of occupation; sale agreements and a succession court order are not proof of occupation. He also did not provide a copy of the register to show the respondent was the registered proprietor for the entire 12-year period. Without these, the claim was not arguable.
Whether orders of inhibition should issue against the suit property
Inhibition refused
An inhibition under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act is an order in the nature of a temporary injunction. Having failed to meet the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions, particularly the prima facie case threshold, the applicant did not deserve the orders sought.
Legal principles established
#- An order of inhibition restrains registration or dealings on a title of land pending an event or further order, and is in the nature of a temporary injunction
- A claim founded on adverse possession requires exclusive, hostile, open and continuous possession without permission of the true owner for the statutory period of 12 years
- Once no prima facie case is established, the court need not consider irreparable loss and balance of convenience
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 15th March 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 68 of the Land Registration Act and Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Order of injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the applicant's use, occupation and developments on the 0.218 Ha portion of Isukha/Shirere/535
Applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with chances of success
Order of prohibition against any transaction on the 0.218 Ha portion of Isukha/Shirere/535
Inhibition/temporary injunction not merited as no prima facie case was established
Costs
The application is 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.
Therefore, the application dated 15th March 2024 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
I find and hold that the applicants has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with chances of success.
As no prima facie case has been established, the questions of irreparable injury and balance of convenience are now moot and inconsequential and therefore the court will not interrogate them.
A claim for land based on the doctrine of adverse possession is anchored on exclusive, hostile, open and possession of the disputed land without permission from the true owner thereof, for a statutory period of 12 years.
Issues in the judgment
#The applicant's affidavit dates are internally inconsistent - the ruling refers to a status quo order of 7th March 2024 pending a ruling on an application dated 14th June 2024, a later date
The related succession cause is referred to inconsistently as Kakamega Succession Cause No. 914 of 2011 and Kakamega HC Succession Cause No. 914 of 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shapaya v Lukhumwa (Administrator of the Estate of Teresina Etambo Lukhumwa) (Environment and Land Case E036 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 295 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in extract (Kakamega Environment and Land Court, Notice of Motion dated 15th March 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/295/eng@2026-01-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.