https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2936

Yano & another v Langat & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E012 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2936 (KLR) (14 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2936 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kitale Environment and Land Case E012 of 2026 CK Nzili, J May 14, 2026 Between Charles Kimutai Yano 1st Plaintiff Alvin Areba Onyari 2nd Plaintiff and Stephen Yego Langat 1st Defendant Anthony Kimei Lamgat (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Lawrence Langat Kipsoi) 2nd Defendant National Land Commission 3rd Defendant The County Land Registrar, Trans Nzoia County 4th Defendant Attorney General 5th Defendant Ruling 1.The plaintiffs, by an application dated 18/2/2026, seek:a.…spentb.That this court be pleased to issue a temporary order of injunction to restrain the 1st and 2nd respondents, their agents, or servants, or anyone claiming through them, from entering, occupying, ploughing, planting, or alienating, offering for sale, leasing, or doing anything on Title No. Kitale Municipality Block 10/23 (formerly L.R. No. 2116/53/XVII), pending the hearing and determination of this application and thereafter pending hearing and determination of this suit.c.That in the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, this court be pleased to issue an order that the status quo existing before 10/7/2025 be maintained.d.That pending the hearing and determination of this application, the 1st and 2nd respondents be ordered to surrender the certificate of lease issued to them in respect of Kitale Municipality Block 10/23 to the Deputy Registrar of this court, and the same to remain in safe custody thereof, until the determination of this suit or until further orders from this court.e.That, in the alternative to (d) above, this court be pleased to issue an order of inhibition to stop any dealings whatsoever with Title No. Kitale Municipality Block 10/23, pending the hearing and determination of this suit and or further orders from this court.f.That the Officer Commanding Kitale/Naisambu Police Station(s) be directed to oversee implementation and compliance with the orders of this court. 2.The grounds are set out on the face of the application and in a supporting affidavit of Charles Kimutai Yano, sworn on 18/2/2026, on behalf of the applicants. It is deposed that by an agreement dated 24/1/2017, the applicants purchased Title No. L.R. No. 2116/53/XVII (IR 35545) from the legal representative of the estate of Sadrudin Hussein Dossa, for Kshs. 9,010,000/=, after which a transfer document was executed and documents presented for registration at Ardhi House, Nairobi. Annexed are the sale agreement, confirmation of grant, e-slip receipt, and Kenya Revenue Authority payment receipt marked CKY-1(a) and (b), 2(a) and (b). 3.The applicants depose that due to bureaucratic delay at the Ardhi House, the transfer was not effected before the expiry of the 99-year lease in September 2023, and subsequently, the entire land file, including the Provincial Certificate of Lease and transfer documents presented, went missing. 4.The applicants depose that upon purchase, they took vacant possession, deposited building materials and erected a semi-permanent structure for occupation by their workers until 2/2/2023, when the 1st and 2nd respondent and or their agents unlawfully entered the land, stopped their workers and threatened then with physical harm leading to a police report at Kitale police station and charged for malicious damage to property as per annexure marked CKY-(3). 5.The applicants depose that after the criminal charges, the 1st and 2nd defendants temporarily vacated the land, only to re-enter forcefully in August 20205, erect a temporary mabati structure, plough the land, continue with trespass, and bring strangers to the land as per photos attached as CKY-4(a), (b), and (c). 6.Further, the applicants depose that their application was lawfully approved and were issued with an allotment letter and a lease following due procure and payment of stand premium as per annexures marked CKY-6(a)-(h) and CKY-(7). 7.The applicants depose that they later discovered that the 1st and 2nd respondents had fraudulently processed a fake letter of allotment and unlawfully obtained registration of the same property as Kitale Municipality Block 10/23 and obtained a certificate of lease dated 10/7/2025. 8.The applicants depose that by a letter dated 13/10/2025, the 3rd respondent formally acknowledged the letter of allotment and lease issued to the 1st and 2nd respondents was based on a forged document and advised that the same be disregarded, with no legal consequences as per annexure marked CKY-(8). 9.The applicant depose that the 1st and 2nd respondents’ title deed was obtained through fraud, forgery, collusion, and misrepresentation, and unless restrained, they will suffer irreparable loss and damage. 10.The application is opposed through a replying affidavit of the 1st and 2nd respondents, sworn jointly by Stephen Yego Langat and Anthony Kemei Langat, on 11/3/2026, saying that they have in actual, physical occupation and possession of the suit land since 1970, being the administrators of the estate of Lawrence Langat Kipsoi, who was the registered owner of the mother title L.R. No. 2116/40/XV11, as per annexures marked SYL-(1) and (2). 11.The 1st and 2nd defendants deny ceding the occupation to anyone, let alone the plaintiffs, whose application seeking to evict them was yet before 10/7/2025; they were there as beneficial owners and Lawrence Langat, the registered owner succeeding their late father, by cultivating the land, while planting assorted crops for consumption, including in 2023. 12.It is deposed that the applicants found the crops and sprayed them with harmful substances, causing withering before maturity, after which they made a report to the police as per annexure marked SYL-(3) and 4(a) and (b). 13.The 1st and 2nd respondents depose that the applicants have been eying and snatching their plot for a long time, including maliciously engineering the arrests as per annexure marked SYL-(5) and SLY-(6), and using means of harassment and intimidation on them, especially the 1st applicant. 14.Further, the 1st and 2nd applicants depose that on 27/7/2025, it came to their attention that the suit land had been advertised for allocation on the pretext of an expired lease to which they objected as per the letter dated 31/7/2025, attached as annexure SYL-(7). 15.The 1st and 2nd respondent deny that their late father sold the land to anyone, or commissioned a subdivision of the land at any time otherwise; they have proper documentation. The 1st and 2nd respondents depose that the applicants should prosecute their suit without splitting hairs or seeking surrender of their title documents to the court. 16.The 1st and 2nd respondents depose that the inhibition orders were granted without being afforded an opportunity to be heard, the applicants are not in possession of the suit land, they will suffer no loss, they have not engaged in any illegalities to obtain the title deed, and they have not conned any person on the pretext of selling the parcel of land. 17.It is deposed that the applicants are misleading the court; they cannot trespass on their own land, they have not issued any threats to anyone, more so to the 1st applicant, who has armed guards. There is already a caution on the title register with effect from 25/2/2026, as per annexure SYL-(8), taking care of any fears by the plaintiff and that the court should not bar them from seeking food security for themselves by cultivating on the land in which they started preparation of the same for this planting season long time, as beneficial and registered owners of the land. 18.The applicants rely on written submissions dated 5/3/2026. Reliance is placed on Giella -vs- Cassman Brown Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358, Nguruman Ltd -vs- Jan Bonde Nielsen & 7 Others [2014] eKLR, and Mrao Ltd -vs- First American Bank of (K) Ltd & Others [2003] KLR 125. 19.The 1st and 2nd respondents rely on written submissions dated respondents rely on written submissions dated 10/4/2026. They have isolated five issues for determination. The first issue is whether applicants have met the conditions for issuance of temporary injunctive orders over the suit parcel. They submit that parties are bound by their pleadings under Section 107 of the Evidence Act, Dakianga Distributors (K) Ltd -vs- Kenya Seed Company Limited [2015] KECA 870 (KLR). 20.The 1st and the 2nd respondents also submit that the applicants should meet the conditions as set in Nguruman Limited -vs- Jan Bonde Nielsen (supra) and Mrao Ltd -vs- First American Bank of Kenya Ltd (supra). 21.The 1st and the 2nd respondents submit that Kitale Municipality Block 10/23 belongs to them upon transmission of their late father's estate, whereas the applicants’ claim is founded on the land parcel known as L.R. No. 2116/53/XVII- Trans Nzoia County. 22.Further, the 1st and the 2nd respondents submit that the existence of two competing title documents shows that the applicant's documents cannot be used to ascertain the true owner of the suit parcel. 23.The 1st and the 2nd respondents submit that it would be improper for this court to order them to yield the occupation and possession before determining the competing interests and rights. The orders, if granted, would result in restraining their use and possession of the suit parcel, thus determining the suit at the interlocutory stage without an opportunity to defend themselves. 24.The 1st and the 2nd respondents submit that the title documents be deposited in court despite some being suspect. They submit that the applicants are merely apprehensive since they do not intend to alienate the suit land. Reliance is placed on Japhet Kaimenyi M'ndatho -vs- M'ndatho M'mbwiria [2012] KEHC4639 (KLR). 25.Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, provides that where it is proved an affidavit or otherwise that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the sit, or where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property, a court may grant an order of temporary injunction staying and preventing the said acts as it think fit, until the suit is heard determined. 26.A party to be entitled to a temporary injunction has to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success at the hearing, show irreparable loss or damage, show a result in the absence of an injunction, and lastly, that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction. See Giella -vs- Cassman Brown (supra). 27.A prima facie is one where, looking at the material presented, a tribunal will find there is an infringement or violation of a right to call for an explanation from the opposite party. See Mrao Ltd -vs- First American Bank of (K) Ltd (supra). 28.Irreparable loss or damage cannot be quantified monetarily. It must be substantial, demonstrable, grave, actual, real, imminent, not speculative but apparent, and inevitable. See Nguruman Ltd -vs- Jan Bonde Nielsen (supra). 29.Balance of convenience refers to what each of the parties is likely to suffer with or without an injunction being granted. See Pius Kipchirchir Kogo -vs- Frank Kimeli Tenai [2018] eKLR. 30.In establishing the existence of these elements, the court as held in Mbuthia -vs- Jimba Credit Corp Ltd [1988] KLR 1, is not expected to conduct a mini trial, or make final findings on contested facts and law, but only to weigh the relative strength of the parties’ cases, where the right is admitted but the breach is disputed, the court takes the lesser risk of injustice and the inconvenience likely to arise to the parties. See Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd -vs- Afraha Education Society [2001] 1EA 86. 31.What the court is faced with is a case of two competing claims or titles to the same suit land between the applicants and the 1st and 2nd respondents. The applicants trace their title to the land to a sale agreement dated 24/1/2017 over Title No. L.R. No. 2116/53/XV11, whose lease was to expire in September 2023. 32.The applicants rely on annexures marked CKY-1(a) and (b), 2(a) and (b), (3), 4(a), (b), and (c), (5), 6(a) - (h), (7), and (8), as the paper trail to which they acquired the lease, running from 1/4/2025 for a term of 99 years. 33.The 1st and 2nd respondents, on the other hand, trace their root of title to a mother title held by their late father with effect from 18/10/1973, known as L.R. No. 2116/40/XV11, which they say was never subdivided, sold, or transferred to anyone. They rely on the grant, copy of I.R. No. 3193, and a copy of the record for Title No Kitale Municipality Block 10/23, opened on 10/7/2025, whose Entry No. 1 shows they hold in trust for themselves and other beneficiaries. The other beneficiaries have not sworn any affidavits or authority to clothe the 1st and 2nd respondents with the capacity to agitate their claim. 34.In Mburu -vs- Kariuki & Another Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2020 [2026] KECA 529 [KLR] (13th March 2026) (Judgment), the court said that where there are two equities, the first in time prevails. 35.In Waterfront Holdings Ltd -vs- Kandie & Others Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2019 [2023] KECA 1223 [KLR] (6th October 2023) (Judgment), the court cited Embakasi Properties Ltd & Another -vs- Commissioner of Lands & Another [2019] eKLR, that although a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of proprietorship, such protection does not extend to title proved to have been fraudulently, illegal, or irregularly obtained. See Torino Enterprises Limited -vs- Attorney General [2023] KESC 79 (KLR) and Dina Management Ltd -vs- County Government of Mombasa & 5 others [2023] KESC 30 (KLR). 36.The court held that it is now the law that the mere fact of issuance of a title deed does not confer the status of indefeasibility of title and that courts would not hesitate to nullify titles held by those who stare at the court and waive a title deed of a grabbed land, by merely and fondly pleading the principle of indefeasibility of title. 37.The court cited Munyu Maina -vs- Hiram Gathiha Maina [2013] eKLR, that when a registered title’s root is under challenge, it is not sufficient to dangle the instrument of title as proof of ownership without showing that the acquisition was legal, formal, and free from any encumbrances. 38.In Philemon L. Wambia -vs- Gaitano Lusitsa Mukofu & 2 others [2019] eKLR, the court cited Benja Properties Limited -vs- Syedna Mohammed Burhannudin Sahed & 4 others [2015] eKLR, that an allotment of an interest in land is a transaction in rem, attaching to and running with a specific parcel of land, and since the second allotment letter did not attach in rem to any land as the land was unavailable for allotment after the 1st allottee fulfilled the terms of condition of his allotment letter. 39.On double allocation in Kenya Ihenya Company Ltd & another -vs- Njeri Kiriba [2019] eKLR, the court said that since the respondent was first in time, she was the bona fide proprietor. 40.In Elizabeth Wambui Kiragu -vs- Ndirangu Macharia [2018] eKLR, and Kamau James Njendu -vs- Serah Wanjiru & Another [2018] eKLR, and M’Ikiara M’Mukanya & another vs Gilbert Kabere M’Mbijiwe [1983] eKLR, the court said that the first in time prevails and that a reallocation could not occur without following the laid down procedure. See also Magdalene Jelagat Chemirmir & another (in their capacity as Administrators of the Estate of Jonah Kiplangat Chemirmir) -vs- Dora Nyambura Maina & another [2015] KECA 448 (KLR). 41.Lastly, in Swaleh Mohamed Waziri & 3 others -vs- Houd Mohmoud Athman & another [2020] KECA 715 (KLR), the court said that an allottee having been allocated land by the Commissioner of Lands and duly paid all the standard premium and other related charges, is considered to have acquired rights over such land, which thereafter rendered it unavailable for allocation to other persons or entities. 42.The title to a landed property can only come into existence after the issuance of a letter of allotment, meeting the conditions stated therein, and thereafter issuance of title documents pursuant to the provisions under which the property is held. See Dr. N.K. Arap Ng’ok -vs- Moijjo ole Keiwua, Nairobi Civil Appl. No. 60 of 1996. 43.The applicants’ paper trail shows that they bought the land from the initial holder, who had a certificate of lease issued to the seller described as I.R. No. 35545, which was due to expire on 30/9/2023. An application for renewal and or registration before expiry had been made by the applicants, which the respondents have not refuted in their pleadings. 44.In a letter dated 13/10/2025, from the allocating authority, the title held by the 1st and 2nd respondents has been termed as based on a forged allotment letter, Ref. No. CF 8277/21, whereas the lease held by the applicants has been confirmed as genuine. Those findings have not been challenged through the process of a judicial review by the 1st and 2nd respondents. 45.The doctrine of estoppel under Section 120 of the Evidence Act bars a party from asserting opposition to what it had said earlier. The 1st and 2nd respondents are yet to file a statement of defence and plead on the infirmities in the title deed held by the applicants, whose lease also runs from April 2025 until the title was issued to the 1st and 2nd defendants in July 2025. 46.In view of the superior and confirmed right of the applicants to the land by the 3rd respondent, I find that the threatened or forceful entry and occupation of the suit land, despite the pending issues, is real, imminent, and apparent to require protection by way of a temporary injunction. 47.The court finds the applicants at this juncture are entitled to unlimited use and occupation of the suit land without hindrance by the 1st and 2nd respondents until the suit is heard and determined. 48.Inhibition orders are provided by Section 68 of the Land Registration Act. The purpose is to stop any dealings with the land register under scrutiny by a court. 49.In Peter Kariuki Njue -vs- Severina Njira Kithumbu & another [2020] eKLR, the court held that its purpose is to prohibit further dealings, since a court has a duty to preserve any property which is the subject of a dispute, to prevent the risk of its alienation, before the suit is heard and determined on the rights of each party as held in Shivabhai Patel -vs- Manibhai Patel [1959] EA 907. See Japhet Kaimenyi M’ndatho -vs- M’ndatho M’mbwiria (supra). 50.The application dated 18/2/2026 is merited in terms of prayers (b), (e), and (f) as follows;a.An order of temporary injunction is hereby issued, restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents, their agents, or servants, or anyone claiming through them, from entering, occupying, ploughing, planting, or alienating, offering for sale, leasing, or doing anything on Title No. Kitale Municipality Block 10/23 (formerly L.R. No. 2116/53/XVII).b.An order of inhibition is hereby issued, stopping any dealings whatsoever with Title No. Kitale Municipality Block 10/23.c.The Officer Commanding Kitale and Naisambu Police Station(s) be directed to oversee implementation and compliance with the orders of this court.d.The orders sought shall issue pending hearing and determination of the suit. 51.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2026.HON. C.K. NZILIJUDGE, ELC KITALE.In the presence of:Court Assistant - DennisMiss Nafula for the plaintiff presentNo appearance for the defendant.