Ongondo & another v Obunga & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E057 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 366 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to stop dealings on disputed family land because the applicants produced no evidence of actual interference or threatened eviction.
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 is merited
- 2.who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants established a prima facie case warranting an interlocutory injunction
No prima facie case was established; the documents annexed did not support the claim of threatened eviction or alienation, and both parties were in occupation
The court applied Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act on burden of proof, requiring the applicants to prove their case on a balance of probabilities. It found no evidence of interference with the 1st applicant's portion and noted the documents annexed did not demonstrate a threat of eviction. Granting the injunction would effectively dispossess the 1st respondent of the portion he has long occupied, which the court considered unfair.
Whether the conditions for injunctive relief under Giella v Cassman Brown and Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules were met
Since no prima facie case was established, the court did not proceed to consider irreparable harm or balance of convenience
The court restated the sequential application of the Giella conditions as clarified in Nguruman, holding that a prima facie case must be surmounted before the other limbs arise. Having found no prima facie case, the remaining conditions need no consideration and the discretionary, equitable nature of the injunction justified refusal.
Legal principles established
#- The Giella v Cassman Brown conditions are to be applied separately and sequentially; where no prima facie case is established, the court need not consider irreparable injury or balance of convenience
- An injunction is an equitable remedy granted at the court's discretion, to be exercised judiciously
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 1st September 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
- 3.The parties are directed to file trial bundles within the next thirty (30) days
- 4.The suit shall be mentioned on 1st April 2026 for compliance
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (interim injunctive relief in a pending land suit)
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining the respondents from accessing, advertising, offering for sale, leasing, mortgaging, charging, transferring, assigning, subdividing or otherwise dealing with the suit property L.R. Number Kasipul/Kakelo Dudi/28
No prima facie case established; the applicants failed to adduce evidence of interference with their portion, and a blanket injunction would dispossess the 1st respondent of the portion he occupies
Order directing the 1st Respondent to deposit the Title Deed and proprietorship documents in court pending hearing and determination of the suit
The application failed as a whole, there being no prima facie case established
Order directing the Officer in Charge of Ringa Police Station to assist in enforcement of the court's orders
The application failed in its entirety as the applicants did not establish a prima facie case
Costs
Each party to bear their own 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.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the application dated 1st September 2025 fails.
Costs of the application will be borne each of the parties, that is to say, each party to bear own costs.
This court notes, there is no need to deliberate on whether the applicants will sufier irreparable loss and whether the balance of convenience tilts in their favour, there being no prima facie case established by the applicants.
Particularly the court has declined this injunction because the applicant has stated that both parties are actually on the land.
he who alleges proves, as required by Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act. The applicant is the one who is to prove on a balance of probabilities.
Issues in the judgment
#The deponent appears inconsistently as both applicant and respondent in the affidavit narrative, suggesting drafting errors in the judgment
The court refers to the application as a ruling but styles the closure 'RULING' while the brief requested judgment; also the respondents' submissions are inconsistently described
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ongondo & another v Obunga & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E057 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 366 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons application dated 1st September 2025 (suit over L.R. Number Kasipul/Kakelo Dudi/28). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/366/eng@2026-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.