Karanja v Isaac & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 28 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8013 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Murang'a court stopped all dealings with a disputed Makuyu land parcel and its subdivisions, confirming land sold to third parties can still be recovered if unlawfully acquired.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Applicable procedural rules in the Environment and Land Court
The Court of Appeal Rules do not apply; the court is bound by the Civil Procedure Act procedure.
Section 19(2) of the Environment and Land Control Act binds the court to Civil Procedure Act procedure, and Section 1(2) of that Act applies to the High Court and, subject to the Magistrates' Courts Act, subordinate courts. The Court of Appeal Rules, being designed for appellate proceedings, therefore have no application in a first-instance matter before this court.
Whether litigation is concluded in this Court
Litigation is not over because the judgment of 29-1-2025 directed the Land Registrar to resolve a boundary dispute and file a report within 60 days, and that order remains unexecuted.
The court noted that its earlier judgment did not conclude the matter but referred the boundary dispute to the Land Registrar with a 60-day reporting requirement. Since that process is still pending, the litigation remains live in this court, which bears on whether preservation orders are warranted pending the appeal.
Whether land sold to third parties is recoverable
Yes; under Article 40(6) of the Constitution the court may order recovery of land found to have been unlawfully acquired.
Article 40(6) withdraws constitutional property protection from unlawfully acquired property. This preserves the court's power, even where parcels have been subdivided or sold, to order recovery of land found to have been unlawfully acquired, so third-party alienation does not defeat the suit.
Whether an injunction should issue
Yes; the substratum of the suit should be preserved and the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo pending final determination.
The court reasoned that property under active litigation should not be alienated or dealt with before final orders. Continued selling and development of the suit parcels would alter their form and render any successful appeal nugatory, so the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo with an injunction.
Legal principles established
#- The Environment and Land Court is bound by the procedure in the Civil Procedure Act, not the Court of Appeal Rules, in first-instance proceedings.
- Property rights under Article 40 do not extend to property found to have been unlawfully acquired, empowering the court to order recovery of unlawfully acquired land.
- Property that is the subject of active litigation should not be alienated or dealt with pending the court's final orders; the status quo should be preserved.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents and/or servants from trespassing on, encroaching on, developing, occupying, selling, transferring or in any manner interfering with title No. Makuyu/Kimorori/Block IV/384 and the resultant subdivisions Makuyu/Kimorori/Block IV/2294 to 2303, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Control Act, Section 19(2); Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karanja v Isaac & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 28 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8013 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8013/eng@2025-11-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.