Ashiundu v Sunshine Courts Limited & 2 others (Land Case E027 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3041 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Plaintiff has demonstrated the threshold for issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with LR No. 209/11326, pending the outcome of this suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case warranting a temporary injunction
The application was found unmerited because, although the Plaintiff holds the original Grant, the Defendants hold competing titles with documented roots and the true ownership cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the court noted the Plaintiff retains the original Grant with no evidence of cancellation, yet the deceased vendor's documents and a Gazette Notice of 16th November 2007 indicated the title was lost and later subdivided. The Director of Surveys found the Defendants' Deed Plans irregular while the Land Registrar confirmed the 1st Defendant's title authentic. These contradictions demanded viva voce evidence, so a prima facie case was not established.
The appropriate interim protective measure where ownership is disputed
Given competing titles, the court maintained the status quo preserving each party's presence on the property and restraining disposal of titles
Because the 1st and 2nd Defendants presented documents in which the deceased vendor indicated his title was lost, corroborated by a Gazette Notice dated 16th November 2007, the court found it proper to preserve the substratum of the suit. The party on the property is to remain thereon without changing the topography, and neither party may dispose of their respective titles pending the outcome of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- Where parties hold competing titles and the evidence leaves the true ownership unresolved, the court may maintain the status quo to protect the substratum of the suit pending full hearing
- Where a party still holds the original Grant with no evidence of its cancellation or surrender, and conflicting official communications exist, the issue of ownership requires viva voce evidence
Court orders
#- 1.That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the obtaining status quo be maintained where the party on the suit property to remain thereon, but not change the topography
- 2.No party should dispose of their respective titles, pending outcome of this suit
- 3.Costs will be in the cause
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 (interlocutory application within a pending suit)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from accessing, selling, charging, entering upon or dealing with the suit property pending determination of the suit
Plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case with a probability of success given competing titles; the court instead ordered maintenance of status quo
Costs
Costs will 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.
That pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the obtaining status quo be maintained where the party on the suit property to remain thereon, but not change the topography. Further, no party should dispose ofi their respective titles, pending outcome of this suit.
I am unable to hold that the Plaintifi has indeed established a prima facie case as against the Defendants who also have competing titles.
there is indeed need for viva voce evidence to enable the Court determine the real owner of the suit property.
I find the Plaintifi's Notice of Motion application dated the 23rd January 2026 unmerited and will disallow it.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains two variants of the same authority relied on by counsel for the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, differing in spelling and citation format
The Plaintiff's submissions cite the case as 'Paul Gitonga Wanjau v Gaguthi Tea Factory' while the court's analysis paragraph on injunction principles does not cite it; the case name spelling is inconsistent ('Gaguthi' vs 'Gathuthi', 'Factory' vs 'Factor')
The judgment is undated at its commencement and does not state the suit's case number or neutral citation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ashiundu v Sunshine Courts Limited & 2 others (Land Case E027 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3041 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). not_stated_in_judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3041/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.