Rono v Rotich (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 641 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Tenability of the preliminary objection based on limitation (Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act)
The preliminary objection was disallowed because it raised highly contested factual issues on the acquisition of the suit land and adverse possession, which must be determined at the hearing of the suit.
The court accepted that a plea of limitation can be a proper preliminary objection per Mukisa Biscuit, but found that the objection here was highly contested, as the plaintiff claimed occupation since the 1980s while the defendant relied on a title issued on 26/04/2024. Following Oraro v Mbaja and Philip Chemwolo, the court held such contested issues must go to trial rather than be disposed of summarily.
Whether the applicant deserved a temporary injunction
The court declined to grant the full injunctive orders sought and instead ordered maintenance of the status quo over the suit land pending trial, guided by Giella and Nguruman principles and its power under section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act.
The court noted it is common ground the applicant purchased a portion of the suit land and that a boundary or survey work exists. The respondent proposed maintenance of the status quo in terms of the fence and present occupation. The court held status quo orders preserve the suit property (Ogada v Mollin) and exercised its statutory mandate under section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act and sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to preserve the property rather than grant the injunction.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection that is highly contested and requires resolution of contested factual issues is not sustainable and must await the hearing of the suit on merit.
- A status quo order is meant to preserve the suit property pending the outcome of the matter.
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is disallowed.
- 2.Status quo prevailing on the suit land in terms of the parties' occupancy and the fence thereof be maintained by both parties in lieu of the injunctive order sought in the application pending the hearing and determination of this suit. In particular, there shall be no sale, charge, transfer, sub division or erection of new fence or permanent structures and or buildings thereon pending the outcome of the suit.
- 3.Costs of the application be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (2015) and sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rono v Rotich (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 641 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 7th November 2024 (suit over land parcel Nandi/Ndurio/452). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/641/eng@2025-02-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.