Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowed· [2026] KEELC 2300 (KLR)

Koima alias Arusei v Korir & another (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2300 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 April 2026
MOM. A. Odeny
2,280 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

In a disputed Kenyan land case, the court ordered both sides to keep things as they are rather than barring one party from the land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru in a land dispute between Joseph Kipkosgei Koima, the plaintiff/applicant, and Robinson Kibet Korir and Rachael Jepkemboi, the defendants/respondents, concerning Plot No. 201 (currently Plot No. 1108) at Banita Settlement Scheme, Nakuru. The applicant, who claimed to be a lawful allottee holding an offer letter from the Ministry of Lands and Settlement and to have cultivated the land since 1997, sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing, constructing or dealing with the suit plot pending the hearing of the main suit, alleging invasion, destruction of fencing and crops, and ongoing construction of a permanent house. The respondents countered that they had purchased a neighbouring parcel (No. 621, later No. 1107) from the estate of the late Fanuel Ochola Omollo under an agreement of 15th October 2022, completed a house there, and had never occupied Plot No. 201, claiming they were wrongly sued. Supporting affidavits were filed by Magdaline Adhiambo Ochola, widow of the late Fanuel Ochola, and David Kipkorir Kigen. Applying Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman principles, and relying on the Baobab Beach Resort, Palm Homes and KALPA authorities on the meaning of status quo, the court held that an injunction was not the appropriate relief where both parties claimed ownership and occupation. Instead, it ordered that the parties maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant met the Giella v Cassman Brown threshold for a temporary injunction

Holding

The court declined to grant the injunction; where both parties assert competing ownership and occupation and the respondents are already in occupation with permanent buildings, the appropriate order is maintenance of status quo pending trial

Reasoning

The court applied Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Giella and Nguruman principles. It found competing ownership claims supported by affidavits and photographs, with the applicant admitting the respondents are in occupation and have constructed permanent buildings. Following the Baobab Beach Resort and KALPA authorities, the court held a status quo order, requiring no proof of a prima facie case, preserves the substratum of the suit pending hearing. An injunction was therefore inappropriate at that stage.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An order to maintain status quo is an ancillary preservation relief distinct from an injunction, and does not depend on proof of a right or a prima facie case
  • Status quo must be maintained as the situation exists at the time the order is made, preserving the existing state of affairs

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The parties maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.Costs of the application in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 1(a) and (b)

Cases cited (6)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai
    (2018) eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Republic v The Chairperson Business Premises Rent Tribunal at Mombasa (Bench Mochache) Exparte Baobab Beach Resort (Mombasa Limited) & Monica Clara Schriel
    Mombasa Misc. Civil Application (JR) No. 26 of 2010
  • Republic v National Environment Tribunal, Ex-Parte Palm Homes Limited & Another
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kenya Airline Pilots Association (KALPA) v Co-Operative Bank of Kenya Limited & another
    [2020] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules; inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the interlocutory application in the pending suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Koima alias Arusei v Korir & another (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2300 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2300/eng@2026-04-27

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