Sabari v Gichobi & another (Land Originating Summons E028 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2963 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Meru court protected a man who has farmed one acre of someone else's land since 2012, but only for 12 months pending the full trial.
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 application dated 8/10/2025 meets the criteria for granting an ordinary interlocutory injunction by a trial court
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case for interlocutory injunctive relief in an adverse possession claim
Yes - his uncontested possession of the one acre since 2012 manifests a probable right deserving interlocutory protection
The court noted that neither the applicant's possession nor the date of entry was contested; what was contested was the character of possession (adverse possessor versus purchaser). The court held that 13 years of possession manifests a probable right warranting interlocutory protection, without making definitive findings on adverse possession.
Whether the applicant demonstrated irreparable injury not compensable by damages
Yes - mature coffee and tea crops face danger of being cut or uprooted and the land faces alienation
The applicant showed he developed the one acre by planting coffee and tea bushes now mature and facing the danger of being cut or uprooted, and that the land stands to be alienated through implementation of the succession order. This established a proper basis for interlocutory injunctive relief.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It favours preservation of the suit land and maintenance of the status quo in registration and possession
The court found that the balance of convenience favours preservation of the suit land and maintenance of the status quo both as to the current registration status of the larger parcel and the applicant's occupation and possession of the one acre portion pending trial.
Legal principles established
#- Possession of land since 2012, uncontested at interlocutory stage, manifests a probable right deserving interlocutory protection
- At interlocutory stage the court should refrain from making conclusive or definitive pronouncements on key issues in the dispute
Court orders
#- 1.An order of inhibition barring registration of dealings in the land register relating to the suit land (prayer 2)
- 2.An interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from entering onto, cutting trees, committing waste, evicting or interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the one acre portion (prayer 3)
- 3.Both orders granted pending hearing and determination of the suit, lapsing after 12 months unless extended by the court
- 4.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution / Environment and Land Court Act (court acting as trial court in land dispute; not expressly stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Indefinite duration of the interlocutory orders
Orders to lapse after 12 months unless extended by the court
Costs
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.
Consequently, the application dated 8/10/2025 succeeds in terms of prayers 2 and 3. The two orders are granted pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
However, unless extended by the court, the said orders will lapse on expiry of 12 months from today. Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
A prima facie case in a civil application includes but is not confined to a “genuine and arguable case.”
This, in my view, is a manifestation of a probable right that deserves interlocutory protection.
Issues in the judgment
#Plaintiff's name printed inconsistently between heading and body
Successive dates in the record (application of 8/10/2025, affidavit of 11/2/2026, submissions of 18/3/2026) predate the registration of the respondents as proprietors on 26/8/2025 only as narrated; internally the chronology is not contradicted, but the judgment contains OCR-style spelling errors ("cofiee", "efiort", "sufier")
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sabari v Gichobi & another (Land Originating Summons E028 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2963 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons (adverse possession) with Notice of Motion dated 8/10/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2963/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.