Bargoria v Wandera & another
The bottom line
#The Eldoret Environment and Land Court protected a woman's occupation of disputed land until trial, but made her pay costs only if she ultimately loses.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a temporary injunction should be granted pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.Who shall bear the costs of this Application?
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - defendants admitted her possession, and photographs showed developed and upcoming structures, establishing actual possession; whether the 12-year period is met is left to trial
The court noted both defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's possession of the suit property. Photographs showed an older rental structure and one under construction. Combined with the admissions, the court was satisfied the plaintiff was in actual possession, a requirement of adverse possession, and thus had a prima facie case. Whether the 12-year statutory period had lapsed was expressly left for trial.
Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages
Yes - as registered owner the 1st Defendant could take possession, evicting the plaintiff who had developed the land; alleged settlement negotiations were unproven
The court found no evidence of a notice to vacate but noted the certificate of official search confirmed the 1st Defendant's registration. Since the plaintiff had developed the property, eviction would cause substantial loss. The survey report acknowledged a parcel mix-up, and no proof of settlement meetings or an exchange agreement was tabled, so irreparable injury was established.
Balance of convenience
It tilts in favour of the plaintiff, who should be given the chance to prove her adverse possession claim at trial
Applying the lower-risk-of-injustice principle from Amir Suleiman vs Amboseli Resort Limited, and having found a prima facie case and irreparable harm, the court held the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the plaintiff in possession pending trial.
Legal principles established
#- Conditions for grant of an interlocutory injunction: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience if in doubt
- At interlocutory stage the court makes no conclusive findings of fact or law but may express a prima facie view
- Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, subject to the court's discretion
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents jointly and severally, whether by themselves, their servants, agents and or assigns, from trespassing, entering, interfering and or evicting the applicant from land parcel No. Uasin Gishu/Kimumu Settlement Scheme/1404 pending hearing and determination of the suit, with the OCS Kapsoya Police Station ensuring compliance
- 2.The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 37 & 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22); Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Costs of the application to the plaintiff
Suit yet to be heard; costs ordered to abide the outcome of the suit
Costs
The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the suit.
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.
An order of temporary injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondents jointly and severally whether by themselves, their servants, agents and or assigns from trespassing, entering, interfering and or evicting the applicant from land parcel No. Uasin Gishu/Kimumu Settlement Scheme/1404
The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the suit.
it is clear that the Plaintiff does meet the requirement of a prima facie case with a probability of success.
the Court finds that the Plaintiff has established that she is likely to suffer irreparable loss and/or injury which cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages.
this court is not mandated at this point to determine whether indeed the Plaintiff has met the 12-year requirement for adverse possession. That is a matter to be determined after the trial upon hearing the evidence of the parties.
Issues in the judgment
#Plaintiff claims possession since 2009 ('over 12 years') but her own submissions state occupation ended in 2021
Conflicting dates for the 2nd Defendant's site visit: 21.12.2025 in affidavit versus 25.11.2025 in submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bargoria v Wandera & another", Case Analysis (2026). Environmental and Land Originating Summons E036 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5771/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.