Nassoro v Korana & another (Land Case E068 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1296 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kilifi landholder without a title deed won an injunction because her long occupation and development permits outweighed the opponent's freshly issued title.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an injunction ought to issue restraining any interference by the first defendant with the plaintiff's ownership, occupation and activities on the suit land.
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case and irreparable loss warranting an interim injunction
Yes — a prima facie case and irreparable loss were established
The plaintiff, though without registered title, exhibited a 2008 letter of offer, an informal transfer, a ground verification report showing continuous occupation, and development approvals from NEMA and the County Government of Kilifi. The first defendant's title issued only on 10th December 2024 with no antecedents shown, and he did not claim prior occupation or demonstrate dispossession. The massive development on the land made the loss, if injunction refused, considerable.
Legal principles established
#- Interim injunctions require a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience where the court is in doubt
Court orders
#- 1.Injunction granted in terms of prayer 3 of the Notice of Motion dated 19th June 2025 restraining the first defendant from interfering with Kilifi/Vipingo Trading Center/1920 pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application in the cause
- 3.Plaintiff to file trial bundle within 21 days
- 4.Defendant to file trial bundle within 21 days from expiry of plaintiff's period
- 5.Mention on 27th May 2026 for issuance of a hearing date
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) Environment and Land Court (inherent interlocutory jurisdiction over land disputes)
Relief refused
#Striking out of the application with costs sought by the first defendant
The court granted the injunction instead and ordered costs in the cause
Costs
The costs of the application shall be 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.
In the circumstances I grant the application dated 19th June 2025 in terms of prayer number 3 thereof. The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Upon consideration of all the evidence provided at this interlocutory stage so far, this court finds that the plaintifi has established a prima facie case.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in dates: letter of offer said to be issued in 2018 but transfer in 2009; the exhibited letter of offer is dated 31st March 2008
Informal transfer date garbled in the judgment text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nassoro v Korana & another (Land Case E068 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1296 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC (Malindi) Miscellaneous Application — Notice of Motion dated 19th June 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1296/eng@2026-03-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.