Lepakkiras & 7 others v Sereolopi Community Land Management Committee (CMLC) & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3549 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Sereolipi community members lost their bid to block a land lease after failing to prove their consultation claims in an interlocutory application before the Isiolo Environment and Land Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicants have established/satisfied the conditions to warrant the grant of orders of temporary injunction or otherwise
- 2.Whether the 3rd Respondent has been improperly joined in the proceedings
- 3.Whether the 5th, 6th and 7th respondents have been properly sued
- 4.What reliefs (if any) ought to be granted
Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established for temporary injunction
No prima facie case established; the Applicants failed to place credible evidence that the community was not consulted, and minutes of engagements annexed by the Respondents were not controverted
The Applicants bore the burden of proving lack of consultation and informed consent. They did not adduce evidence to controvert the minutes and resolutions annexed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents showing engagements with the community. Whether the engagements met the qualitative and quantitative threshold of public participation is a matter for plenary hearing with evidence and cross-examination, not an interlocutory application. Absent a prima facie case, the injunction must fail.
Whether the 3rd Respondent was improperly joined
The 3rd Respondent is properly joined and is a necessary party, being the conceded beneficiary of the intended lease
The 3rd Respondent conceded it is the investor in whose favour the lease is being issued and is engaged in ongoing negotiations. It cannot deny a cause of action against itself while claiming the benefit of the lease (approbating and reprobating). Striking it out risks its rights and interests being affected without participation, contrary to Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution. Applying the definition of cause of action in Kigwor Company Limited v Samedy Trading Company Limited, a cause of action exists against it.
Whether the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents were properly sued
The 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents were improperly joined; the petition against them was struck out
The community land is duly registered with a certificate of title, so the County Government's custodianship under Section 6 of the Community Land Act ceased and management vests in the CLMC. The Land Registrar Nyahururu, appointed under the Land Registration Act, has no mandate over community land, which is the domain of the Community Land Registrar. The National Land Commission's mandate under Articles 67 and 68 extends only to public land. Their joinder was founded on misapprehension of the law.
Whether conservatory orders canvassed only in submissions could be granted
No - a party cannot seek a new relief through submissions without amending the application
The Applicants raised conservatory orders for the first time in their written submissions, although the notice of motion did not seek them. Introducing a new relief through submissions amounts to smuggling the issue through the back door. The correct course was to amend the application. Citing IEBC v Stephen Mutinda Mule and Emuria v Sambu, the court held the issue was not available for consideration.
Whether the court could compel disclosure of accounts and records under Article 35
No - Article 35 does not fall within the mandate of the Environment and Land Court and the Applicants bypassed the Access to Information Act mechanism
Following Aluochier v Senate and Njonjo Mue v IEBC (Supreme Court), citizens seeking information held by state organs must follow the prescribed procedure under the Access to Information Act, including application to the custodian and review by the Commission on Administrative Justice. The Applicants' approach was unorthodox, premature and misconceived, and Article 35 enforcement falls outside the ELC's mandate.
Legal principles established
#- Failure to establish a prima facie case defeats the grant of an order of temporary injunction
- A party cannot introduce a new relief through written submissions; the application must be amended
- Upon registration of community land, the County Government's role as custodian ceases and management vests in the Community Land Management Committee
- A party cannot approbate and reprobate - one who concedes being the beneficiary of a lease cannot simultaneously claim no cause of action exists against it
- Citizens seeking information under Article 35 must follow the prescribed procedure under the Access to Information Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated the 30.10.2025 be and is hereby Dismissed
- 2.The Petition as against the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents be and is hereby struck out
- 3.Costs of the application be and are hereby awarded to the Respondents
- 4.Costs of the Petition (the limb of the Petition struck out) be and are hereby awarded to 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents
- 5.The costs shall be agreed upon and in default be taxed in the conventional manner
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 2, 3, 10, 11, 21, 22, 23, 40, 42, 43, 47, 56, 60, 63, 69 and 159 of the Constitution; Sections 6 and 16 of the Community Land Act, 2016
Relief refused
#Interim injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents from signing, executing or formalizing any lease agreement over the Sereolipi community land
No prima facie case established; public participation is a matter for plenary hearing
Interim injunction prohibiting recruitment/employment of rangers, drivers, guides or staff
No prima facie case established; precondition for temporary injunction absent
Order compelling the 6th Respondent (County Government of Samburu) to revoke approvals/consents/leases
County Government's custodianship ceased upon registration of the community land; prayer based on misapprehension of Section 6(7) of the Community Land Act
Prohibitory order restraining intimidation, harassment or interference with community members
Allegations constitute cognizable offences under the Penal Code; Applicants should lodge complaints with the Inspector General of Police
Order compelling the 5th Respondent (Land Registrar Nyahururu) to disclose title deed, registers and survey records
The Land Registrar appointed under the Land Registration Act is not the custodian of community land records; the Access to Information Act lays down the proper mechanism
Order compelling the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents to disclose books of accounts, financial statements and payment records
Premature and misconceived; Article 35 claims do not fall within the mandate of the Environment and Land Court and the prescribed procedure was not followed
Reference of the dispute to court-supervised mediation
Not specifically addressed as the application was dismissed in its entirety
Conservatory orders canvassed in written submissions
Not pleaded in the application; cannot introduce a new relief through submissions
Costs
Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents; costs of the Petition (the limb struck out) awarded to the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents, to be agreed and in default taxed in the conventional manner
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
i. The Application dated the 30.10.2025 be and is hereby Dismissed.
ii. The Petition as against the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents be and is hereby struck out.
iii. Costs of the application be and are hereby awarded to the Respondents.
iv. Costs of the Petition [the limb of the Petition struck out] be and hereby awarded to 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents.
The failure to establish a prima facie case defeats the grant of an order of temporary injunction.
It is trite and established that a party cannot canvass a new issue; or seek to introduce a new relief, through the submissions.
upon registration the mandate to administer and manage the registered community land vest[s] in the appointed Community Land Management Community [CLMC] and not the County Government.
It cannot lie in the mouth of the 3rd Respondent that there is no cause of action against it and that same should be struck out the proceedings, while on the other hand conceding that it is the beneficiary of the intended lease.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent dating of the application - it is described as 'dated the 30.10.2025' in the opening paragraph but as 'dated the 30.01.2025' in paragraph 32
Inconsistent spelling of the 3rd Respondent's deponent's name - 'David Stogdale' and 'David Stogdele' appear in the same judgment
The supporting affidavit is variously described as 'sworn on the 30.10.2025' and the application date given inconsistently as 'even date'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lepakkiras & 7 others v Sereolopi Community Land Management Committee (CMLC) & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3549 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion Application dated 30.10.2025 (arising out of a Petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3549/eng@2026-06-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.