Yenko & 13 others v Narok County Government & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8242 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Narok declined to halt Olokurto land adjudication and titling, but the main petition over the disputed boundaries will still be heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether conservatory orders should issue to preserve the alleged 1975/agreed boundaries of Olokurto Adjudication Section
Conservatory orders refused; the competing claims about the 1990 amendment and the 2024 County Assembly resolution require evidence at trial
The court found the issues of whether the Narok County Assembly altered the Maasai Mau Forest boundary and whether the 1990 amendment was implemented are contested and cannot be resolved with certainty on affidavit evidence. Determining them at the interlocutory stage would amount to deciding the Petition with finality. Public interest and constitutional values weighed against granting interim relief before full hearing.
Whether temporary injunctions could issue against demarcation and titling
Refused; the events are alleged to have already occurred and no prima facie case was established
The Respondents deponed that the impugned processes had been completed, with titles issued to over 1,711 holders, and the Applicants did not deny the process had taken place, seeking only to restrain issuance. An injunction lies against future events, not completed ones. Having failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success, the other sequential Giella principles fell away.
Whether the Certificate of Finality of 2017 and the 1990 Amendment of Declaration Notice bar the Applicants' claims
Not determined at this stage; left for trial
The court noted that a Certificate of Finality was issued in 2017 and was not challenged, and the Applicants did not challenge the September 2024 County Assembly resolution until filing the Petition in April 2025. However, it expressly declined to make conclusive findings on these contested questions, holding that all issues raised can only be adequately resolved after evidence and cross-examination at the main trial.
Legal principles established
#- Conservatory orders preserve the substratum of a petition and are granted bearing in mind public interest and constitutional values
- An injunction cannot be granted where the event sought to be injuncted has already occurred
- The conditions for a temporary injunction are a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and, in doubt, balance of convenience
- An interlocutory court is not required to determine trial issues with finality
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 14th April 2025 is dismissed entirely
- 2.Costs to be in the cause
- 3.The parties are directed to prepare the main Petition for hearing so that the contested issues can be dealt with at once
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10, 20, 21, 40, 47, 50, 60, 64, 67 and 232 of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 5, 24, 28 and 31 of the Land Adjudication Act; rules 13, 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Yenko & 13 others v Narok County Government & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8242 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 14th April 2025 (within the Petition filed 14th April 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8242/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.