Partois & another v Sampoti & another (Environment and Land Case E036 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3007 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris blocked the cutting of trees on disputed land until an ongoing appeal is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Res judicata - whether prior injunction applications in the trial court barred this application
The plea of res judicata failed because the respondent did not annex the prior applications and rulings, and the court could not refer to the supplementary record of appeal as the appeal was not yet admitted
Res judicata is a jurisdictional issue and was framed first. The respondent alleged similar applications had been determined in CMELC E096/2023 and E045/2024, referring to rulings in a supplementary record of appeal. However, directions under Order 42 rule 10 had not been issued and the appeal had not been admitted, so the court could not access the supplementary record. Without the underlying evidence of the prior determinations, no finding of res judicata was possible.
Whether an injunction pending appeal ought to issue to preserve the trees
The application was merited; the trees formed part of the subject matter of the consolidated suit and the counter-claim, so preservation was necessary to avoid rendering the appeal nugatory
Applying the injunction-pending-appeal principles (Patricia Njeri as quoted in Timothy Kisina Kithokoi) and Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found the applicant had exhibited the plaint in E096/2023 showing the trees were the subject of the counter-claim for trespass damages and a permanent injunction against felling. Harvesting of the trees pending appeal would destroy the subject matter and render the appeal and counter-claim academic, justifying preservation.
Legal principles established
#- Where the party asserting res judicata does not place the prior applications and rulings before the court, no finding of res judicata can be made
- An appeal not admitted for hearing means the supplementary record of appeal cannot be referred to
Court orders
#- 1.The court confirmed the orders issued on 16.12.2025
- 2.The application dated 27.11.2025 was allowed in terms of prayer No. 2 (temporary injunction restraining cutting, felling, destroying, removing, selling or interfering with the trees on parcels Transmara/Oldanyati/767/739 and 740 pending hearing and determination of the appeal)
- 3.The applicants were awarded costs of the application
- On appeal from
- Kilgoris Chief Magistrate's Court (CMELC)
- E096/2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (injunction pending appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Partois & another v Sampoti & another (Environment and Land Case E036 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3007 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (appeal against consolidation order in Kilgoris CMELC E096/2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3007/eng@2026-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.