Olwal v Ojenya (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1319 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kisumu court protected a long-time land occupier from eviction by freezing all dealings with the property until his adverse possession claim is decided.
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 has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success warranting a temporary injunction under Order 40 Rule 1
- 2.Whether the suit land is in danger of being alienated and whether the Applicant's claim would be defeated if evicted
- 3.Whether an inhibition should be registered on the suit land to preserve the records pending hearing of the suit
Key legal issues
#Temporary injunction pending hearing and determination of the adverse possession suit
Granted - the Applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success and danger of the claim being defeated if evicted
The court applied Order 40 Rule 1, finding on the unopposed application and supporting affidavit that the suit land was in danger of alienation and that eviction of the Applicant, who claims over 13 years of adverse and uninterrupted possession since 2012 following the Respondent's invasion of 16th December 2025, would defeat the claim in the Originating Summons. The injunction restrains interference with possession pending trial.
Registration of an inhibition on the suit land
Granted - the inhibition preserves the records in respect of the suit land pending the hearing of the suit
The court held that the essence of an inhibition is preservation of the registry records relating to the suit property pending trial. Finding the prayer merited on the unopposed material, the court directed the Land Registrar, Kisumu County, to register the inhibition alongside the temporary injunction.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking a temporary injunction under Order 40 Rule 1 must demonstrate that the suit property is in danger of being alienated, that the claim would be defeated without the injunction, and a prima facie case with a probability of success.
- An order of inhibition serves to preserve the land registry records in respect of suit land pending the hearing of the suit.
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Respondent, his employees or agents from interfering with the Applicant's possession and occupation of land parcel No. Kisumu/Konya/1922 pending hearing and determination of the suit (prayer 3)
- 2.Order directing the Land Registrar, Kisumu County, to register an inhibition on the suit land pending hearing and determination of the suit (prayer 4)
- 3.Costs in the main suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 40 Rules 1, 2 and 3 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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 allow the application in terms of prayers 3 and 4 thereof. Costs shall be in the main suit. Orders accordingly.
The Applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success.
As regards the prayer for an order of inhibition, the essence is to preserve the records in respect of the suit land pending the hearing of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The affidavit of service is dated 3rd March, 2025 yet it attests to service of court orders issued on 20th February, 2025 and documents served on 21st February, 2025, while the application itself is dated 17th February, 2026 and the hearing took place on 5th March, 2026 - the years 2025 and 2026 are inconsistent within the record
The suit number/case number of the Originating Summons and of this application is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Olwal v Ojenya (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1319 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1319/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.