Background
1. Before this Court is the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2026 seeking, inter alia, a temporary injunction restraining dealings with land parcel No. EVURORE/EVURORE/26 and an order staying the confirmation and/or implementation of the grant issued in Siakago Principal Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause No. 220 of 2022, insofar as it relates to the said parcel of land.
2. The application is premised on the Applicant’s assertion that he purchased 1.2 Hectares of the suit land from the deceased in 1978, paid the full purchase price, and has remained in possession for over forty-five (45) years.
3. The Respondent, as administrator of the estate, opposes the application on grounds that the alleged transaction is void, disputed, statute-barred, and that the Applicant has already lodged a protest in the succession cause raising similar claims, which protest is pending determination.
Issues for Determination
4. The following issues arise for determination:
a) Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief.
b) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to stay confirmation or implementation of a grant pending before a magistrate’s court exercising succession jurisdiction.
c) Whether the application amounts to an abuse of court process.
Analysis
(a) Effect of the Pending Protest in the Succession Cause
5. It is not in dispute that the Applicant has already filed a protest in Siakago Principal Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause No. 220 of 2022, challenging the proposed distribution of the estate on the basis of the same alleged purchase now relied upon before this Court.
6. By filing the protest, the Applicant voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the succession court and invited that court to interrogate his claim within the framework of the Law of Succession Act.
7. While it is correct that questions of ownership, trust, or adverse possession are ultimately within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Applicant cannot, having elected one forum and set the probate court in motion, simultaneously maintain parallel proceedings seeking injunctive and stay orders in this Court over the same subject matter.
8. The proper and orderly course would have been for the Applicant to await the determination of his protest. If dissatisfied with the outcome, he would then be at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with the law. The present approach amounts to a premature invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction.
(b) Jurisdictional Limits and Judicial Comity
9. The Applicant seeks an order staying confirmation and/or implementation of a grant pending before a magistrate’s court exercising succession jurisdiction delegated by the High Court.
10. This Court is a specialised court established under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution with a distinct mandate limited to environment and land matters. It does not sit on appeal over, nor does it supervise, succession proceedings pending before courts exercising probate jurisdiction.
11. To grant the stay sought would effectively amount to this Court restraining another court of competent jurisdiction from exercising powers expressly conferred upon it by statute. Such an order would be a clear overreach and would offend the principles of jurisdictional restraint, judicial comity, and orderly administration of justice.
12. The fact that the succession court is exercising jurisdiction equivalent to that of the High Court in succession matters further underscores the impropriety of the orders sought. This Court cannot, through an interlocutory application, halt or micromanage proceedings before a court of concurrent competence acting within its lawful mandate.
13. Even on the merits, the Applicant has not satisfied the settled principles for the grant of a temporary injunction.
14. The alleged sale agreement is hotly contested and its validity is in serious doubt, particularly in light of the mandatory requirements of the Land Control Act. These are not matters that can be resolved at an interlocutory stage.
15. Further, the Applicant has not demonstrated any imminent threat of alienation. The grant has not been confirmed, and the estate remains under the control of the court. Any perceived risk is speculative.
16. In the circumstances, no irreparable harm has been demonstrated. The balance of convenience tilts in favour of allowing the succession proceedings, including the pending protest, to run their lawful course without interference.
(d) Abuse of Court Process
17. The concurrent pursuit of a protest in the succession cause and injunctive relief before this Court, founded on the same factual matrix, constitutes forum shopping and an abuse of the court process.
18. Courts must guard against litigants multiplying proceedings in different forums in the hope of obtaining favourable interim orders, as such conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
Disposition
19. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2026 is devoid of merit.
20. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
21. Costs of the application shall be to the Respondent.
22. For avoidance of doubt, nothing in this ruling shall be construed as a determination of the merits of the Applicant’s protest pending before the succession court or of the substantive issues, if any, that may properly fall for determination before this Court at the appropriate time.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT EMBU THIS 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.
……………………………….
HON. E. C. CHERONO
JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
In the presence of;
1. Mr. Kiranga H/B MR. Guantai for Applicant.
2. M/S Wanjiku H/B Njiru Mbogo for Respondent
3. Diana Kemboi C/A.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
| 5 | Page |