Nkurumwa & another (Suing as Legal Administrators of the Estate of Simpano ole Kesike (Deceased)) & another v Estate of the Late Tinga Le Nkuito & 20 others (Environment and Land Case E014 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1168 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Narok court refused to stop the issuance of contested land titles, ruling that fraud claims about a falsified adjudication record can only be resolved at a full trial with evidence.
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 Applicants have established a prima facie case with a probability of success
- 2.Whether the Applicants stand to suffer irreparable injury which cannot be compensated by damages
- 3.Whether the balance of convenience tips in favour of granting the conservatory/injunctive orders sought
- 4.Who is to bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success
No prima facie case established; the alleged falsification of the adjudication record was denied and could only be tested at trial
The Applicants alleged two versions of the adjudication record with the equal shareholding erased, supported by a forensic report. The Respondents denied any falsification. The court held that resolving whether there are two versions requires evidence to be called and tested by cross-examination at trial, and that under sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act the burden lies on the Applicants who alleged fraud. On the Mrao test, no apparently infringed right was demonstrated.
Whether the Applicants would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
No irreparable harm established; no evidence of eviction threat or occupation of the disputed 45 acres
The Applicants feared eviction and alienation if titles were issued to the 1st to 18th Respondents. The court found no evidence of eviction notices, no evidence the Applicants resided on the suit parcels, and noted the Applicants did not deny possession of the undisputed portion of Olokurto/425. Whether they were entitled to the disputed 45 acres had to await trial evidence.
Balance of convenience
Court not in doubt; even if it were, status quo (no injunction) would be maintained, being the lower risk of injustice
The court found the balance of convenience did not favour injunctions, and that the lower risk was to withhold injunctive relief, particularly given that prior judicial review proceedings over the same parcel had been dismissed in 2006. The court indicated it would not hesitate, after trial, to cancel illegally acquired titles and restore the land if the Applicants succeeded.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case in civil matters is one in which a right has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party
- Allegations of fraud must be proved by evidence; at interlocutory stage, where allegations are denied, the court cannot resolve them on affidavit evidence but must await trial
- In considering the balance of convenience the court should take whichever course carries the lower risk of injustice if it turns out to have been wrong
- An interlocutory court should not determine with finality the substantive disputed issues on affidavit evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The Amended Notice of Motion dated 4th July 2025 is dismissed entirely with costs being in the cause
- 2.Parties to comply with Order 11 within 21 days to prepare the main suit for hearing expeditiously
- 3.Parties encouraged to promote and/or attempt Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the matter
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction under sections 1A, 3A and 63(c) and (e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, and Orders 40 Rules 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Conservatory orders restraining the 19th and 20th Respondents from processing title deeds for Olokurto/1839 to 1856
Applicants failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success
Orders barring the 1st to 18th Respondents from selling, leasing, charging, transferring or subdividing the suit parcels
No irreparable harm not compensable by damages was established, and the balance of convenience favoured not granting injunctions
Costs of the application awarded to the Applicants
Application dismissed with costs in the cause
Costs
Application dismissed entirely with costs being in the cause
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 court finds it not merited, and the same is dismissed entirely with costs being in the cause
Let the parties prepare the main suit for hearing expeditiously by complying with Order 11 within the next 21 Days from the date hereof, so that the issues in dispute are resolved once and for all.
the Plaintifis/Applicants have not established a prima facie case, with probability of success as described in the case of Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya & 2 Others, [2003] KLR 125
the court finds the lower risk herein is not to grant any injunctive orders, which orders are not tenable for now, given that a Judicial Review Misc. Application over the same parcel of land had been dismissed by Nakuru High Court in 2006
Parties are also encouraged to promote and/or attempt Alternavie disputes resolution (ADR) in this matter given that initially the three proprietors were holding the suit land in common.
Issues in the judgment
#Certificate of Finality date conflicts with completion date of adjudication: the process is said to have been completed on 22nd August 1996 while the Certificate of Finality is stated to have issued on 22nd March 1996
The judgment does not state the case number or the court's exact designation; the ELC is inferred from the land subject matter and Narok station
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nkurumwa & another (Suing as Legal Administrators of the Estate of Simpano ole Kesike (Deceased)) & another v Estate of the Late Tinga Le Nkuito & 20 others (Environment and Land Case E014 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1168 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1168/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.