Chepkiyeng v Cherubet & 2 others (Sued as the legal representatives of the Estate of Kipruto Cherubet alias Kipruto arap Cherubet - Deceased) (Land Originating Summons E011 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2933 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Eldoret stopped any sale, subdivision or eviction involving 3 acres of land occupied by a family since 2004.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - on the totality of the material (sale agreement, photographs of developments, claimed adverse possession since 2004), the applicant established a prima facie case.
The applicant claims 3 acres by adverse possession since 2004, supported by a sale agreement, photographs of developments and an official search. The respondents merely denied possession and asserted the land is non-existent without dislodging the material placed before the court. At interlocutory stage the court does not resolve merits on contradictory affidavit evidence; it need only find an apparent legal right requiring rebuttal, which was satisfied here.
Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages
Yes - eviction and change of the status on the ground would irreparably harm the applicant and possibly render the suit nugatory.
The applicant deponed that forcible eviction of his family from land occupied since 2004 and fresh subdivision would change the status on the ground before determination of the suit. The court found the harm was satisfactorily set out and that damages would not adequately compensate an eviction, satisfying the second Giella condition.
Where the balance of convenience lies
The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant; the status of the suit property must be preserved to prevent the court issuing orders in vain.
Applying the lower-risk-of-injustice principle, the court held that preserving the subsisting status of the property allows the adverse possession claim to be heard and determined on merit. Withholding the injunction risked a greater mischief - alteration of the ground status and futile proceedings - than granting it.
Legal principles established
#- The conditions for grant of an interlocutory injunction are a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience if in doubt.
- A prima facie case is one in which a legal right has apparently been infringed calling for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party.
- In interlocutory injunctive relief the court should opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice.
Court orders
#- 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, the respondents by themselves, their agents and/or servants are restrained by an order of temporary injunction from invading, encroaching, alienating or dealing in any manner whatsoever with 3 acres of that parcel of land known as LR. No. 9507.
- 2.An inhibition is issued stopping and/or restraining further transactions and subdivision over the portion measuring 3 acres in L.R No. 9507 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
- 3.Costs of the application will be in the cause.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40 and 23(2)(b) of the Constitution; Sections 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act; Sections 107 and 110 of the Land Act; Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chepkiyeng v Cherubet & 2 others (Sued as the legal representatives of the Estate of Kipruto Cherubet alias Kipruto arap Cherubet - Deceased) (Land Originating Summons E011 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2933 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 26th February, 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2933/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.