Court stops interference of church land where its hospital stands in Kaloleni

The Environment and Land Court has issued interim orders stopping some residents of Kaloleni, Kilifi County from interfering with the Anglican Church of Kenya’s peaceful possession of its 8.8 hectares of land where the church’s owned St Lukes Hospital stands.

Justice Evans Makori issued the orders pending hearing and determination of the case filed by the church through the Church Commissioners of Kenya who have sued 13 residents (defendants).

In his ruling, the judge noted that applying the principles concerning the issuance of an interlocutory injunction (interim order), it is established that the church holds ownership of the land through a duly extended leasehold interest.

He also noted that the plaintiff (church) manages a hospital situated on the land and that on August 12 last year, the defendants unlawfully entered the hospital premises insisting that the church vacate the land.

“It is a well-settled legal doctrine that every landowner has the right to the quiet possession and occupation of their property without interference from third parties,” ruled Justice Makori.

The court also ruled that the church had established a right that was at the brink of violation, thus a prima facie case, prompting the defendants to rebut it.

“The immediate harm caused by the defendants’ actions would be the disruption of the hospital's operations and the delivery of much-needed critical healthcare services to residents of Kaloleni,” ruled Justice Makori.

The court noted that irreparable loss and damage that will be caused by the invasion will not only harm the applicant's (church’s) proprietary rights but also disrupt health services for the residents of Kaloleni.

“The balance of convenience favors granting the requested orders. As already demonstrated, the applicant currently holds title to the suit property and there is a hospital on the land that serves the public. It is in the public interest to maintain the ownership and normal operations at the hospital pending the hearing of the suit,” ruled Justice Makori.

In its application, the church had argued that it holds a certificate of title to the land and operates St. Luke’s hospital, Kaloleni, on the land.

It told the court that the hospital was established in 1927 by the church and has served the community for nearly a century.

The church said that it has had possession and occupation of the land since 1904 until August 12 last year when the defendants led a crowd of over fifty people to storm the hospital.

According to the church, the defendants delivered a letter dated August 11, 2025, to the hospital manager demanding that it (the church) vacates the land immediately and surrender it to the people of the Kaloleni community.

The court heard that the letter included an ultimatum stating that if the demand was not fulfilled within 14 days, the people of Kaloleni would exercise their sovereign power to take the land.

The church told the court that it was deeply concerned by the actions as they were alarmists and meant to deny it the use and quiet enjoyment of the land with the potential of disrupting the operations of the hospital and delivery of much-needed critical health care services to the residents.

The defendants opposed the application for interim orders by the church saying it (church) lacked legal basis to grant the plaintiff injunctive orders against them.

This, they argued, was because the applicant obtained lease documents through misrepresentation and the extension or renewal was unlawfully, illegally, and procedurally improper.

The defendants argued that the church’s application had not established any prima facie case against them and ought to be dismissed.

In its main case, the church is seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anyone acting on their authority from interfering with its title and quiet possession over the land being land reference number 3833 as delineated on land survey plan number 464333.

It also wants a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anyone acting on their authority from inciting members of the public to interfere with the plaintiff’s title and quiet possession over the land.