Naikuni v Chairman Board of Trustee Purko Development Trust - Seleila Ole Mwanik & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 663 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Narok refused to stop a completed lease of community land, saying such orders cannot undo what has already happened.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Threshold for grant of conservatory orders
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with likelihood of success, that the Petition would be rendered nugatory, or that the orders were warranted in the public interest.
Applying the Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School principles and Gatirau Peter Munya, the court found the Petitioner had not established any violation of his rights, had no community authority to sue, and the lease of 207 acres had already been completed, so the orders would serve no purpose.
Conservatory orders and completed acts
Conservatory orders cannot issue against an event that has already happened; they are prospective remedies to preserve the status quo.
The court noted that the 4th Respondent had already leased 207 acres of the suit land. Issuing conservatory orders to restrain a completed leasing would be an academic exercise, since the court retains power, after hearing the main Petition, to cancel the lease if the action is found wanting.
Locus standi / authority to represent a community
The Petitioner produced no authority from the members of the Purko Community authorizing him to institute the Petition and seek conservatory orders on their behalf.
Although the Petitioner claimed to act on behalf of the Purko Community, no resolution or mandate was exhibited. The court also noted the Board had labelled him a proxy of the suspended CEO, raising the question whether he was a dissatisfied member rather than a community representative.
Legal principles established
#- A conservatory order cannot quash a decision or undo an event that has already been fully completed, being inherently prospective and meant to preserve the status quo.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 26th September 2025 is dismissed entirely with costs to the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents
- 2.The parties to prepare the main Petition for hearing, and the same to be heard expeditiously
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23(1), 165 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Naikuni v Chairman Board of Trustee Purko Development Trust - Seleila Ole Mwanik & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 663 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Petition with Notice of Motion dated 26th September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/663/eng@2026-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.