Keino v Uasin Gishu County Governor & another (Environment and Land Case E059 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 520 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Eldoret stopped Uasin Gishu County from building or making decisions on disputed land until ownership is decided at trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes. The Plaintiff produced a Certificate of Lease over plot 100 and a sale agreement over both plots; without a Certificate of Lease over plot 103 the tenure cannot be ascertained, so the claim that the land reverted to the Government cannot be ascertained either. The Plaintiff established a prima facie case that he has an interest over the suit properties.
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown test and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case. It found evidence of the Plaintiff's lease over plot 100 (which may or may not have lapsed) and correspondence confirming payment for plot 103. Absence of title over plot 103 cuts both ways: neither party could establish whether the lease lapsed and the land reverted. The apparent interest sufficed at this interlocutory stage.
Irreparable harm and balance of convenience
Continued construction by the county on contested land would prejudice the Plaintiff and waste public resources if he ultimately prevails; no finding had been made that the properties are public land.
The court held that no finding had been made that the suit properties are public property, which remains for the full hearing. The Plaintiff remained in possession and ostensibly the owner. Construction had not properly commenced beyond signage and boundary alteration, so halting it caused little harm, while proceeding risked irreparable prejudice and wasted public funds.
Whether the temporary prohibition order should issue
Yes. Because one parcel appears unregistered and entirely within the Defendants' control, only a prohibition order (rather than inhibition, which requires registration) could preserve the suit property pending trial.
Relying on John Aboko Kumenda and the Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge exposition on prohibition, the court distinguished inhibition (applicable to registered land) from prohibition. Since the Defendants could register, allocate or procure title over the unregistered parcel while the suit was pending, a temporary prohibition order against entries and decisions was necessary.
Legal principles established
#- A plaintiff who holds apparent interests over suit property is entitled to have those interests protected by interlocutory injunction until disentitled at trial
- Public resources should not be expended on construction on land whose ownership is contested pending determination
- Where a parcel is unregistered and its fate lies in the control of the defendants, a temporary prohibition order against making decisions on the property is warranted
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction issued pending the hearing and determination of the suit, restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents, their servants, agents, associates, employees and all other persons from trespassing, coming onto, or staying on the land, and from demolishing, constructing or altering any building or structures, houses or fences or in any way dealing with the Applicant's property known as Eldoret Municipality Block 13/103 and Eldoret Municipality Block 13/100
- 2.A temporary order prohibiting the 1st and 2nd Respondents from making any entries on the suit parcels Eldoret Municipality Block 13/103 and 13/100, summoning or in any way making decisions pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Costs of the application shall be costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (suit properties Eldoret Municipality Block 13/103 and 13/100); application brought under Order 40 Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Keino v Uasin Gishu County Governor & another (Environment and Land Case E059 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 520 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion Application dated 13th June, 2025 (Eldoret ELC suit, number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/520/eng@2026-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.