Maina v Chome & another (Environment and Land Case E076 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1309 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Malindi land court dismissed a limitation defence raised too early and froze the land's current state until trial instead of granting an injunction.
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 preliminary objection dated 13th November 2024, founded on Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22, meets the threshold of a preliminary objection
- 2.Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land
- 3.Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief
Key legal issues
#Whether the limitation-based objection qualifies as a preliminary objection
It does not, because whether the defendants' occupation was under licence and when any licence expired are matters requiring evidence at trial
Applying the Mukisa Biscuit test, a preliminary objection proceeds on the basis that all facts pleaded are admitted and uncontested. Here the plaintiff alleges the defendants occupy under licence while the defendants vehemently deny it and claim adverse possession. Determining limitation under Section 7 would require investigation of the licence question and the adverse character of the occupation, so the objection fails the threshold.
Whether an injunction should issue pending the hearing of the suit
A prima facie case was established, but the court doubted irreparable injury and instead ordered preservation of the status quo
The plaintiff holds title to the suit land, but the defendants are in occupation and it is in controversy whether that occupation is with or without the plaintiff's consent - a matter for trial. Given the defendants hold no title and are unlikely to dispose of the property, the risk of irreparable injury was doubtful, making preservation of the suit property the safest course pending full hearing.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be founded on undisputed facts; where an issue requires evidence to resolve, it does not amount to a preliminary objection
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 13th November 2024 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The application dated 19th July 2024 is granted to the extent that the prevailing status quo of the suit land shall be maintained as it is by the parties pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
- 3.The costs of the application shall be in the cause
- 4.The Plaintiff to file his trial bundle within 21 days from the date of the ruling, and the defendants to file their trial bundle within 21 days from the expiry of the period granted to the plaintiff, with the matter to be mentioned on 28th 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
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (suit land Gede/Mijomboni/578)
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land
The court found no real risk of disposal by the defendants and instead preserved the status quo pending trial
Costs
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs; costs of the application 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 upshot of the foregoing is that the preliminary objection dated 13th November 2024 does not meet the threshold of a preliminary objection so-called and it is for dismissal.
The application dated 19th July 2024 is granted to the extent that the prevailing status quo of the suit land shall be maintained as it is by the parties herein pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
The preliminary objection dated 13th November 2024 is hereby dismissed with costs
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case title, case number or neutral citation, and the names of the parties are not given anywhere in the text
The judgment is dated 2nd March 2026 but recites that mediation was referred on 2nd April 2025 and revived on 30th October 2025, and lists a mention date of 28th May 2026; the chronology is internally consistent but the hearing date far postdates the application, which may warrant verification against the court record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina v Chome & another (Environment and Land Case E076 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1309 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1309/eng@2026-03-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.