Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedPetition dated 15.05.2025 (Eldoret ELC)· [2026] KEELC 37 (KLR)

Kirwa v Chebet & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 37 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 January 2026
EWEMMANUEL M. WASHE
5,320 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~21 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Eldoret refused to stop the transfer of Chemalal Farm/107 because the applicant showed no real harm beyond what valid court orders already allowed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, David Kirwa, moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 15.05.2025 in a constitutional Petition seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from entering upon, selling, alienating, transferring, leasing or dealing with Chemalal Farm/107 pending the hearing of the Petition, and an order directing the OCS Jua Kali Police Post to assist in enforcement. The dispute traces to Uasin Gishu Land Dispute Claim No. 13 of 2010, in which the 1st and 2nd Respondents were awarded 1.9 acres of the suit property on 04.10.2010; that award was adopted as a court order on 01.03.2011 in Eldoret CMCC Award No. 9 of 2010, and an application of 16.11.2021 for demarcation and transfer was allowed, with the Applicant's review application of 12.10.2023 dismissed on 29.04.2024. The Applicant contended the tribunal acted ultra vires by determining a contract for sale dispute. The 1st and 2nd Respondents opposed, arguing res judicata, lack of jurisdiction, non-exhaustion of the appeal mechanism under the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act, and that an injunction would amount to eviction. The Court framed four issues and held that it has jurisdiction, as the Petition raises legitimate constitutional questions, and that the application was not res judicata prior applications (the E198 of 2024 matter involved a different plaintiff and was struck out without a determination on merit). Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the Court found a prima facie case but no irreparable harm and found the balance of probability favoured the Respondents, who occupy under lawful orders. The application was dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd Respondents only.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction over the Petition and interlocutory application

Holding

The Court has jurisdiction over both the Petition and the application; the Petition raises valid constitutional questions on the tribunal's power over a contract dispute, and the application is not res judicata prior applications in other files

Reasoning

The Court found the Petition raises legitimate constitutional questions whether the Land Disputes Tribunal had statutory power to determine a contract for sale matter, which the ELC can adjudicate. On res judicata, the prior ELC application was by a different plaintiff (Joshua Ngetich) and was struck out on a preliminary objection without determination on merit, so it could not be res judicata the present application.

p. 8
02

Entitlement to temporary injunction under Giella v Cassman Brown

Holding

Injunction refused: prima facie case was established, but irreparable harm was not demonstrated and the balance of probability favours the 1st and 2nd Respondents who occupy under lawful orders

Reasoning

The pending Petition raised genuine and arguable issues constituting a prima facie case. However, the Applicant admitted the earlier decree had been implemented and did not state the injury he would suffer, nor evidence any intention by the Respondents to sell, subdivide or lease the land. The Respondents' occupation is premised on valid tribunal and court determinations, so the balance tilts their way until the Petition is determined.

p. 12
03

Merits and costs

Holding

Application not merited; costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondents

Reasoning

Having found the ingredients of an injunction unsatisfied, the application necessarily failed. Costs follow the event, and the unsuccessful Applicant was condemned to pay the 1st and 2nd Respondents' costs only.

p. 12

Legal principles established

#
  • The Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine constitutional issues relating to land ownership, use and legal tenure
  • An application cannot be res judicata an earlier application that was struck out and never heard and determined on merit
  • No single Giella ingredient alone entitles an applicant to an injunction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion application dated 15.05.2025 is not merited and therefore dismissed forthwith.
  2. 2.The applicant is condemned to pay costs of this application to the 1st and 2nd Respondents only.
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court to hear and determine constitutional issues relating to land ownership, use and legal tenure (not expressly tied to a cited article in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kirwa v Chebet & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 37 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 15.05.2025 (Eldoret ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/37/eng@2026-01-20

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