Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherELC Case (transferred from Molo CMCC ELC No. 65 of 2021) - Notice of Motion dated 3rd October 2025· [2025] KEELC 8138 (KLR)

Maragia v Koskei (Environment and Land Case E059 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8138 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 November 2025
MOM. A. ODENY
1,621 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

#

A Nakuru court refused to stop a land dispute but froze the situation: both sides must keep the property exactly as it is until the full case is decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (M. A. Odeny, J) determined the Defendant/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 3rd October 2025 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiff/Respondent from entering or interfering with her possession and use of the suit land, Nakuru/Saino Settlement Scheme/1227, together with ancillary orders for access to her homestead and police enforcement. The Applicant, a 96-year-old widow, deponed that she was allocated the parcel in 1997, occupied and developed it for over two decades, and that the Respondent — whom she described as a serial land grabber — had caused her arrest and prosecution in Molo CM Criminal Case No. E1455 of 2021, in which she was acquitted. The Respondent countered that he purchased the land in 2007 from Benjamin Rono, was registered as owner, and that it was the Applicant who encroached from 2014. The matter was in the ELC by virtue of the Applicant's counterclaim for adverse possession filed in ELC Case No. 65 of 2021 at the Chief Magistrates' Court, which was transferred to the ELC. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, and noting that a consented survey report filed on 17th October 2024 was inconclusive as neither party produced ownership documents, the court declined the injunction and instead ordered that status quo be maintained over the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the suit, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant met the threshold for grant of a temporary injunction

Holding

The court declined to grant the injunction and instead issued an order of status quo to preserve the suit land pending trial

Reasoning

Both parties claim proprietary rights over the suit land. A court-ordered survey report filed on 17th October 2024 was inconclusive, as neither party produced documents demonstrating ownership, so the court could not establish who were bona fide owners. Since a temporary injunction preserves the substratum of the case, the court found an order of status quo to be the just preservation measure, with costs in the cause.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the substratum of the case pending hearing
  • The test for an interlocutory injunction requires a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable loss not compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of status quo to be maintained over the suit land Nakuru/Saino Settlement Scheme/1227 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.Costs in the cause
On appeal from
Chief Magistrates Court (Molo)
ELC CASE NO 65 OF 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Transfer of the Defendant's counterclaim dated 31st August 2022 in ELC Case No. 65 of 2021 (Chief Magistrates' Court) to the Environment and Land Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maragia v Koskei (Environment and Land Case E059 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8138 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case (transferred from Molo CMCC ELC No. 65 of 2021) - Notice of Motion dated 3rd October 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8138/eng@2025-11-25

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