Ouma (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Samwel Odera Ogara - Deceased) v Omondi (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 044 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1523 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Migori court blocked all dealings with contested land and stopped its owner from interfering with a family that has occupied it since 1977.
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 complied with Order 37 Rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules on annexing a certified extract of title
- 2.Whether the applicant should be granted temporary injunctive orders
- 3.Whether an order of inhibition should issue in respect of the suit property
- 4.Costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Compliance with Order 37 Rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
The applicant's annexure of a certificate of official search sufficed; the application was neither defective nor bad in law.
Relying on Wilson Kazungu Katana and Johnson Kinyua v Simon Gitura Rumuri, the court held that the purpose of the certified extract of title is to identify the land and titleholder. Where land is registered under the Registered Land Act, a search certificate duly signed by the Registrar constitutes evidence of the register entries and meets the requirement.
Prima facie case
Established. The applicant annexed a land sale agreement evidencing his father's 1977 purchase and a search showing registration in the respondent's name while the applicant remains in occupation under threat of eviction.
Applying the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the court found the applicant's documentary evidence disclosed an apparent right (long adverse occupation) requiring rebuttal from the respondent. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Irreparable harm
Established. The family's occupation since 1977 and burial of the applicant's parents on the land carries sentimental value incapable of compensation in damages.
Citing Nguruman and the estate of Magdalena Kabon Sawe, the court reasoned that injury which is substantial and cannot be adequately remedied by damages justifies injunctive relief. The homely environment and connection to departed family members satisfy this limb on a balance of probability.
Balance of convenience
Tilts in the applicant's favour, as he is in occupation and has satisfied the first two Giella limbs.
The court noted the balance of convenience arises only where the court is in doubt on the first two conditions. Since the applicant established a prima facie case and irreparable harm, and is on the ground, the balance of convenience favours him.
Legal principles established
#- Under the Registered Land Act system of registration, a certificate of official search suffices in place of a certified extract of title for purposes of Order 37 Rule 7(2).
- The three Giella conditions for injunction must be met separately and sequentially.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of inhibition restraining registration of any transfer, lease, charge or other instrument in respect of L.R Waware South/Sakwa/285 pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.A temporary injunction restraining the respondent and/or his agents from trespassing, building, fencing, excavating, cultivating, demolishing and/or erecting structures on L.R Waware South Sakwa/285 until the suit is heard and determined, to last twelve months subject to extension upon satisfactory explanation
- 3.Costs in the cause
- 4.Mention for compliance on 27th April 2026; each party to file and exchange trial bundles within 30 days
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Section 68 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 (interlocutory relief in an adverse possession suit under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act)
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.
There be and is hereby issued an order inhibiting the registration of any transfer, lease, charge or any other instrument whatsoever in respect of L.R Waware South/Sakwa/285 situate in Migori county pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
There be and is hereby issued a temporary order of injunction against the respondent and / or his agents from trespassing, building, fencing, excavating, cultivating, demolishing and /or erecting structures on L.R Waware South Sakwa/285 until this suit is heard and determined, if within a year.
Costs shall be in the cause.
The identification of the land in possession of an adverse possessor is an important and integral part of the process of proving adverse possession.
Issues in the judgment
#The suit's case number is not stated anywhere in the ruling; only the prior related ruling (Adongo v Ogola, E08 of 2025) carries a number.
The respondent's grounds of opposition are dated 3rd November 2025, which is internally consistent with a February 2026 ruling but the ruling itself gives no filing date for the application beyond 'dated 29th September 2024'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ouma (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Samwel Odera Ogara - Deceased) v Omondi (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 044 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1523 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1523/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.