Khasoha & 2 others v Nyokabi & 3 others; Wamunga & 4 others (Proposed Defendant) (Environment and Land Case E055 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 142 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Eldoret Land Court let a family add new parties to their land case but refused to freeze the disputed properties because they lacked documentary evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Leave to amend plaint to add parties
Leave granted; the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action and was necessary for effective adjudication and fair hearing of the proposed defendants.
Order 8 Rule 3 permits amendment at any stage on just terms. The applicants discovered the identities of the proposed registered proprietors only upon conducting official searches. The draft amended plaint merely added the proposed defendants and outlined their proprietorship without introducing new issues prejudicial to the existing defendants. Including them was necessary for complete adjudication and to allow them to be heard before any adverse decision.
Temporary injunction against the proposed defendants
Declined against the proposed defendants in respect of parcels 1450 and 1387 because they had not yet been heard.
Although leave to amend was granted, the proposed defendants had not had an opportunity to respond to the injunction application. Determining the injunctive prayer against them at that stage would condemn them unheard, offending the right to a fair hearing. The court therefore declined that prayer only against the proposed defendants and in respect of those two parcels.
Temporary injunction against the 1st–4th defendants
Dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case.
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown as restated in Nguruman, the applicants had to prove a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience sequentially. Save for official searches of parcels 1450 and 1387, no documentary evidence showed the properties formed part of the deceased's estate, that the 1st–4th defendants were registered proprietors, or that there were attempts to transfer the titles. The claims amounted to unfounded fear and apprehension.
Legal principles established
#- Amendment of pleadings should be allowed if it can be made without causing injustice to the other party.
- The three Giella v Cassman Brown principles for temporary injunction are separate hurdles to be proved sequentially; failure of the first disposes of the application.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the plaintiffs/applicants to amend their plaint and include the proposed defendants as parties in the suit (Elphas Shikuku Wamunga, Christopher Koech Cherogon, Paul Asai Akufana, Amukune Kubondo and Land Registrar Uasin Gishu County)
- 2.Plaintiffs/applicants directed to file and serve the amended plaint within 7 days from the date of the ruling
- 3.Corresponding leave granted to the defendants to amend their statement of defence within 14 days from the date of service if need be
- 4.Prayer No. (d) on temporary injunction dismissed
- 5.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 8 Rule 3 and Order 40(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Khasoha & 2 others v Nyokabi & 3 others; Wamunga & 4 others (Proposed Defendant) (Environment and Land Case E055 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 142 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated on the face of the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/142/eng@2026-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.