Cheruiyot & 5 others v Kirobon Farmers Company Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E067 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6717 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cancelled land injunction orders because the applicants hid earlier litigation over the same property, and dismissed their contempt claims with costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Non-disclosure of material facts in obtaining ex-parte orders
The Plaintiffs were guilty of non-disclosure of the judgment in ELC No. 29 of 2017 over the same land and the pending appeal; the ex-parte orders were set aside and discharged.
The Plaint and supporting affidavit were silent on the prior judgment and decree in ELC No. 29 of 2017 over the same parcel, indeed affirming no prior proceedings existed. The same counsel had sought joinder in the ensuing appeal, showing the Plaintiffs knew of the litigation. The uncontroverted history of litigation was of sufficient materiality to justify immediate discharge of the orders without examining the merits, and equity denies relief to a party with unclean hands.
Application for injunction
Dismissed because it was anchored on the discharged ex-parte orders.
The court reasoned that once the foundation orders fell for non-disclosure, the injunction application, dependent on those orders, could not survive; the non-disclosure determination was made first precisely because an adverse finding would dispose of the injunction and contempt applications.
Contempt of court
Dismissed with costs as the orders allegedly disobeyed had been set aside and were anchored on non-disclosure.
Since the orders of 14th October, 2024 and 29th November, 2024 were discharged for material non-disclosure, the alleged breach of 25th November, 2024 could not found a contempt finding; the contempt application collapsed with the underlying orders.
Legal principles established
#- A party applying for ex-parte relief must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including prior litigation over the subject matter; failure disentitles the applicant to the court's discretion and justifies discharge of the order without examination of the merits.
- An order of injunction being an equitable remedy, an applicant must come to court with clean hands and good faith to benefit from the court's discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The ex-parte injunctive orders granted on 14th October, 2024 and 29th November, 2024 are set aside and discharged
- 2.The Plaintiffs' application for injunction dated 11th October, 2024 is dismissed with costs
- 3.The Plaintiffs' application for contempt dated 28th November, 2024 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cheruiyot & 5 others v Kirobon Farmers Company Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E067 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6717 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6717/eng@2025-10-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.