Sena & 29 others v Cheruiyot & 80 others (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 903 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Narok Environment and Land Court refused an injunction over disputed Narok land, ordering everyone to stay on their portions until trial decides ownership.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case with probability of success
The Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case; ownership of the suit land is disputed and can only be determined at trial through viva voce evidence
Although the Plaintiffs claimed to be registered proprietors, the Defendants asserted long occupation since 1990 and questioned how the Plaintiffs acquired the parcels. The court held it could not, on affidavit evidence, confirm the Plaintiffs' ownership, which required testing at trial through cross-examination. Therefore no prima facie case with probability of success was established.
Irreparable injury
No irreparable injury that cannot be compensated by an award of damages was demonstrated, given the Defendants' long occupation
The Defendants have allegedly occupied the land since 2006 (or 1990 per their account); their continued presence poses no danger of waste, alienation or destruction of the suit properties. If the Plaintiffs ultimately prevail, eviction orders with costs would be an adequate remedy, so damages would suffice.
Balance of convenience
The court, being in doubt, found the balance of convenience favours maintenance of the status quo, with each party remaining on their respective parcels
Since ownership can only be effectively determined after evidence is called, the court weighed the lower risk of injustice. The status quo was defined as each party remaining in possession of their respective portions until the suit is heard and determined; no restraining orders were to issue.
Substituted service
The prayer for substituted service was overtaken by events as most Defendants appeared and participated
Most Defendants had filed replying affidavits and submissions and appeared through counsel, so service was effected; no reasons were advanced to justify substituted service through newspapers.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for a temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience (Giella v Cassman Brown)
- A prima facie case is more than an arguable case; the evidence must show an infringement of a right and probability of success at trial
- Where ownership is in dispute and evidence must be tested at trial, the court preserves the status quo as the lower risk of injustice
Court orders
#- 1.Court declines to grant any injunctive orders as sought in the Notice of Motion dated 11th February 2025
- 2.Status quo to be maintained, with each party remaining in possession of the respective portion of the suit properties they currently occupy until the suit is heard and determined
- 3.Prayer for substituted service overtaken by events; granted no relief
- 4.Each and every party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act; application under Order 40 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kapkomoi v Korir alias Flomena Jelagat Mulwo (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4795 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4795 (KLR)22 Jul 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sena & 29 others v Cheruiyot & 80 others (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 903 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 11th February 2025 (ELC, Narok). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/903/eng@2026-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.