Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 3888 (KLR)

Lelei & 2 others (All Suing on Their Own Behalf and as Officials of St. Monica Women Group) v Mutai & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3888 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 May 2025
725 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court let applicants withdraw two interim applications, froze the situation by leaving respondents in possession, and deferred costs until the main suit ends.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet dealt with two notices of motion by the three applicants, dated 30th October 2024 and 17th February 2025, in a land dispute over parcels Nandi/Ndalat/411 and 999. The first application sought a temporary injunction or maintenance of status quo, with the applicants claiming possession of 0.1 acres, plus police security during implementation; the second sought contempt proceedings against the respondents for allegedly disobeying court orders, restoration of the status quo ante, and committal to civil jail for six months. At the hearing, Mr Bungei, instructed by Mr Rotich for the applicants, sought to withdraw both applications to allow the main suit to be heard without delay. Ms Koech for the respondents did not object, but asked the court to record that the respondents were in possession of the suit parcels as the prevailing status quo and to award costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court allowed the withdrawal, invoking Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution ('Justice shall not be delayed') and applying Martin Kabaya v David Mungania Kiambi. Relying on Ogada v Mollin and section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, it held that status quo orders preserve disputed property and found no dispute that the respondents were in possession. On costs, guided by the proviso to section 27(1) and the Supreme Court decision in Rai v Rai, it awarded costs in the cause. The applications were marked withdrawn with costs in the cause, and the respondents were ordered to remain in possession of the two suit parcels pending the outcome of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Withdrawal of interlocutory applications

Holding

An applicant may withdraw pending applications to secure timely hearing of the main suit

Reasoning

Counsel for the applicants sought abandonment of the two motions to allow the main suit to proceed without delay; counsel for the respondents did not oppose. The court accepted the withdrawal as consistent with the constitutional command that justice shall not be delayed, citing Article 159(2)(b).

p. 2
02

Interim status quo order

Holding

The respondents were to remain in possession of the suit parcels pending the outcome of the suit

Reasoning

The court found no dispute that the prevailing position was respondents' possession of the two parcels. Because status quo orders preserve disputed property pending determination, and the court enjoys preservation-order powers under section 13(7) of the ELC Act, an interim status quo order maintaining respondents in possession was merited.

p. 2
03

Costs of withdrawn applications

Holding

Costs were granted 'in the cause' rather than to any party immediately

Reasoning

Respondents, having responded to both applications, sought costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. Applicants suggested costs be shared. Applying the proviso to section 27(1) and the Supreme Court's affirmation of judicial discretion in Rai v Rai, the court reserved costs in the cause rather than awarding them forthwith.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Status quo orders are meant to preserve property in dispute pending the outcome of a case
  • The Environment and Land Court may grant interim preservation orders including status quo under section 13(7) of the ELC Act
  • Costs follow the discretion of the court under the proviso to section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicants' applications dated 30th October 2024 and 17th February 2025 marked as withdrawn with costs in the cause
  2. 2.The respondents to remain in possession of the two suit parcels of land pending the outcome of this suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lelei & 2 others (All Suing on Their Own Behalf and as Officials of St. Monica Women Group) v Mutai & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3888 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3888/eng@2025-05-19

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.