Amis & another v Nyapola & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 927 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega dismissed land applicants' bid to block a sale because they couldn't prove 12 years of actual occupation.
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.
- 2.Whether the applicant has met the conditions for grant of temporary injunction, and
- 3.Whether orders of status quo should issue in the alternative.
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants established a prima facie case of adverse possession warranting inhibition or injunction
They did not; the estate of the alleged purchaser had no known legal or equitable interest, occupation was unevidenced, and the sale agreement's authenticity was unrebutted
The court reasoned that adverse possession rests on exclusive possession and dispossession for 12 years. The applicants alleged purchase of 'a portion' which was allegedly resold to the 2nd applicant, leaving the estate with no interest. Occupation was contested but unsupported by evidence, and the forgery allegations against the 1975 agreement were never rebutted with evidence from the Registrar of Persons, undermining credibility.
Whether the court has power to issue an order of inhibition
Yes, under section 68 of the Land Registration Act, but the power is exercised only where the applicant meets injunction-type conditions
Section 68 empowers the court to inhibit registration of dealings with land. Because an inhibition restrains registration of dealings for a time, it is equivalent to a temporary injunction, so the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions (prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) apply before it issues.
Legal principles established
#- A registered proprietor of land holds absolute and indefeasible rights which cannot be suspended without lawful justification.
- Prescriptive rights under the Limitation of Actions Act, including adverse possession, are overriding interests over registered land, so an applicant claiming adverse possession must first demonstrate a prima facie case with chances of success to obtain inhibition or injunction.
- An inhibition order is in the nature of a temporary injunction.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 30th April 2025 is dismissed with costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 68 and 24, 25, 26 of the Land Registration Act and Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (originating jurisdiction over land)
Relief refused
#Inhibition and/or prohibitory order against title No. E/Wanga/Lubinu/6296
Applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of adverse possession with chances of success
Temporary injunction restraining respondents from selling, alienating, transferring or interfering with the suit property
No evidence of occupation, let alone 12-year occupation, and the authenticity of the 1975 sale agreement was challenged and unrebutted
Alternative order for maintenance of status quo on the suit property
Status quo orders are in the nature of a temporary injunction and the applicants failed to establish the necessary conditions
Costs
Costs of the application awarded to the respondents (dismissed with costs).
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.
I find and hold that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with chances of success and therefore they do not deserve the orders sought. In the premises, I find and hold that the application dated 30th April 2025 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
prescriptive rights created under the Limitation of Actions Act including claims of adverse possession are overriding interests which registered land is subject to
An order of inhibition is in the nature of a temporary injunction as it restrains the registration of dealings on a title for a period of time.
a registered proprietor of land has absolute and indefeasible rights over their land, which rights cannot be suspended without lawful justification
Issues in the judgment
#The supplementary affidavit is dated 9th June 2015 although it responds to a replying affidavit dated 12th May 2025, an apparent date inconsistency in the judgment
The applicant's submissions are dated 15th March 2025, which precedes the application date of 30th April 2025 and the reply of 12th May 2025
The suit is described with differing parcel numbers (837, 3879, 5797, 6296) in the chain of subdivision, and the applicants' claimed dimensions (36 feet by 15.5 feet) conflict with the respondents' stated parcel size (100 feet by 50 feet / 0.05 hectares)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amis & another v Nyapola & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 927 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/927/eng@2026-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.