Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 8027 (KLR)

Some & 2 others v Some (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of Kiplagat Kituit alias Kiplagat Arap Kituit-Deceased) (Environment and Land Originating Motion E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8027 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 November 2025
1,420 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kapsabet Environment and Land Court froze a disputed Nandi land parcel, keeping it registered in a deceased person's name until the ownership case is fully decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants/plaintiffs moved the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet by Notice of Motion dated 12th August 2025 seeking an interim injunction restraining the respondent from entering, sub-dividing, selling, alienating or evicting them from LR No. Nandi/Eisero/108, land portions of which they claimed to have occupied and used for over 12 years under adverse possession. The application was supported by the 1st applicant's affidavit with documents including a green card and official search. The respondent, administrator of the Estate of Kiplagat Arap Kituit (Deceased), opposed through a replying affidavit, contending her brother had sold the land without family authority, that the applicants merely sporadically cultivated without residing, and that the suit was an abuse of process intended to circumvent succession proceedings in which a magistrates' court had found it lacked jurisdiction. Both sides filed submissions invoking Giella v Cassman Brown, Nguruman and Mrao. The court, per G.M.A Ong'ondo J, applied the Giella principles as reiterated in Nguruman, found the respondent had attempted register entries to transfer the land, and invoked the doctrine of lis pendens (Ogada v Mollin) and the court's preservation power under Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act. Holding a status quo order rather than the injunction in the terms sought was appropriate, the court granted an interim preservation order - the land to remain registered in the deceased's name and not be sold, charged, transferred, sub-divided or alienated pending determination - with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants met the Giella threshold for an interim injunction

Holding

Rather than the specific interim injunction sought, the court granted an interim preservation order of status quo under Section 13(7) of the ELC Act

Reasoning

The court applied the Giella principles as reiterated in Nguruman, noting the applicants demonstrated attempts by the Respondent to make entries in the register that could alter the character of the suit land and compromise the suit. Invoking the doctrine of lis pendens and the court's preservation powers, the court held a status quo order was the applicable remedy, preserving the land registered in the deceased's name pending determination.

p. 3
02

Whether the applicants demonstrated a risk of alienation defeating their claimed adverse possession rights

Holding

Yes - the applicants showed the Respondent had attempted entries in the register to transfer or register the land to third parties

Reasoning

The court found the Respondent had made attempts to make entries at the Lands Registry with intent to transfer or register the suit land in third parties' names, which could alter the character of the land and compromise the suit. This justified preservation of the subject matter pending full determination of title and the adverse possession claim.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a party demonstrates attempts to alter the register over land the subject of a suit, the court may issue preservation orders of status quo under Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act to preserve the subject matter under the doctrine of lis pendens

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Interim preservation order of status quo to prevail over the suit land
  2. 2.Suit land to remain registered in the name of the deceased, Kiplagat Kituit, and not to be sold, charged, transferred, sub-divided or alienated in any manner pending hearing and determination of the suit
  3. 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 51 Rule 16
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 40
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13(7)(a)

Cases cited (7)

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown & Company Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Nguruman Ltd vs Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Mrao Ltd vs First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others
    (2003) eKLR
  • Ogada vs Mollin
    (2009) KLR 620
  • National Bank of Kenya Limited vs Shimmers Plaza Limited
    [2009] eKLR
  • Naftali Ruthi Kinyua vs Patrick Thuita Gachure & another
    (2015) eKLR
  • Musa Angira Angira vs ICDC
    (2015) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Some & 2 others v Some (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of Kiplagat Kituit alias Kiplagat Arap Kituit-Deceased) (Environment and Land Originating Motion E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8027 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8027/eng@2025-11-18

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