Partois & another v Sampoti & another (Land Case Appeal E036 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3059 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kilgoris protected trees on disputed Transmara land from being cut or sold until an appeal is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application for injunction pending appeal is res judicata given similar prior applications before the trial court
The application is not res judicata because the Respondent failed to place the prior applications and rulings before the court.
The Respondent alleged similar applications had been heard and determined in CMELC No. E096/2023 and CMELC No. E045/2024 but did not annex the applications or rulings. Instead the Respondent referred to two supplementary records of appeal. Since directions under Order 42 Rule 10 have not been issued and the appeal has not been admitted, the court could not refer to the supplementary record and was denied an opportunity to examine the prior rulings. Without evidence of res judicata, the issue was answered in the negative.
Whether an injunction pending appeal should issue to preserve the trees on the suit parcels
The application is merited; the trees form the subject matter of the appeal against consolidation and of the counter-claim before the trial court, and preservation is needed so the appeal is not rendered nugatory.
Applying the Patricia Njeri principles as stated in Timothy Kisina Kithokoi, the court found the Applicant had made out a case for preserving the subject matter. The Applicant exhibited the plaint in CMELC E096/2023, whose consolidation is the subject of the appeal; the plaint sought damages for trespass and a permanent injunction against felling of trees, showing the trees are part of the subject matter. Cutting them would render the appeal and the counter-claim an academic exercise.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata is a jurisdictional issue which must be proven with evidence of the prior proceedings and rulings placed before the court
- An applicant for injunction pending appeal must show that refusing the injunction would render the appeal nugatory, and the court may order preservation of the subject matter of the appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The orders issued on 16th December 2025 are confirmed
- 2.The application dated 27th November 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer No. 2, being a temporary injunction restraining the Appellants/Respondents, their agents, servants, employees, family members or any persons acting under her instructions from cutting, felling, destroying, removing, selling or in any way interfering with the trees standing on parcels No. Transmara/Oldanyati/767, 739 and 740 pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal
- 3.The Applicants are awarded costs of the application
- On appeal from
- Kilgoris Chief Magistrate's Environment and Land Court (CMELC No. E096/2023)
- CMELC No. 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 (Land Case Appeal E036 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3059 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2025 in pending Appeal from CMELC No. E096/2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3059/eng@2026-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.