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 AllowedEldoret ELCLC Number E050 of 2026· [2026] KEELC 3663 (KLR)

Burgei v Kemboi & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E050 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3663 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 June 2026
COC.N. Ondieki
2,173 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

#

An Eldoret court froze dealings on a disputed Cheptiret land parcel and pushed the parties to settle out of court instead of fighting every issue in a full hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
In this land dispute before the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret, the Court, presided over by C.N. Ondieki J, dealt with two applications dated 21.5.2026 and 28.5.2026 filed by the Plaintiff. Framing its approach around the overriding objective (oxygen principle) under sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act, and invoking Articles 1, 60(1)(g) and 159(2)(c) of the Constitution together with sections 59B and 59C of the Civil Procedure Act and Practice Directions 7, 23(k) and 25(f) of the 2025 Practice Directions, the Court promoted alternative dispute resolution rather than a contested hearing of the interlocutory applications. For the application dated 21.5.2026, both Counsel concurred that an inhibition under section 68 of the Land Registration Act would cause no prejudice to their clients. By consent, the Court issued an inhibition over Title Number Cheptiret/Cheplaskei Block 3 (Sertwet) 243, pending hearing and determination of the suit, expiring upon delivery of judgment or any other conclusive decision. The 2nd Defendant/Respondent was directed to register the inhibition within 14 days of service, the inhibition to be cancelled under section 70(a) and (b) of the LRA upon proof of the judgment without need of a consequent court order. The order was to be extracted and served within 3 days. On the application dated 28.5.2026, the Court directed both Counsel to discuss and structure a consent to be adopted to settle it, with a mention fixed for 16.6.2026. Costs of both applications were made costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Court-anchored ADR as a case-management tool in land disputes

Holding

Pursuant to Articles 1, 159(2)(c) and 60(1)(g) of the Constitution, sections 59B and 59C of the CPA and Practice Directions 7, 23(k) & 25(f) of the PDELC, the Court directed parties to consider ADR on the Application dated 28.5.2026 instead of holding a contested hearing, since the alternative pathway could not contravene the Bill of Rights or be repugnant to justice or morality

Reasoning

The Court framed the oxygen principle as imposing symmetrical obligations on the Court and the parties to achieve just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution. Court-annexed ADR, grounded in constituent power under Article 1 and the land-dispute principle in Article 60(1)(g), was held to serve people-centred justice and the STAJ one-year disposal timeline, making referral to ADR preferable to consuming judicial time on interlocutory applications.

p. 5
02

Consent-based resolution of the Application dated 21.5.2026 through an inhibition

Holding

Both Counsel concurred that no prejudice would be suffered if an inhibition issued; the Court accordingly issued an inhibition under section 68 of the Land Registration Act over Title Number Cheptiret/Cheplaskei Block 3 (Sertwet) 243 by consent, pending hearing and determination of the suit

Reasoning

The Court proposed an inhibition and a status quo order as alternatives to a contested hearing. Counsel for both sides agreed the inhibition would cause no prejudice. On the status quo question Counsel diverged on whether it should reflect the status before or after the 1st Defendant's entry onto the suit property, with both confirming structures existed on the property, but the matter was resolved through the consent inhibition.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court may, on its own motion or at the request of parties, refer a dispute to mediation or other ADR where appropriate or where the law so requires
  • A suit may be referred to any method of dispute resolution where the parties agree or the Court considers the case suitable
  • An inhibition does not bind or affect the land, lease or charge until registered

Court orders

#
  1. 1.By consent of the parties, an inhibition issued under section 68 of the Land Registration Act in relation to Title Number Cheptiret/Cheplaskei Block 3 (Sertwet) 243, pending hearing and determination of the suit, expiring on the date of the judgment or any other conclusive decision of the Court
  2. 2.The 2nd Defendant/Respondent directed to register the inhibition within 14 days from the date of service
  3. 3.The inhibition to be construed in accord with section 70(a) & (b) of the Land Registration Act and cancelled upon proof to the satisfaction of the Uasin Gishu County Land Registrar of the judgment or conclusive decision, without a consequent order under section 70(d)
  4. 4.The order to be extracted and served upon the 2nd Defendant/Respondent within 3 days by learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant
  5. 5.Both Counsel directed to discuss and structure a Consent addressing the Application dated 28.5.2026, to be adopted to settle that application, with a Mention on 16.6.2026 at 9.00 am for directions
  6. 6.Costs of the two Applications to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 1
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 60(1)(g)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(c)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1A(1), (2), (3)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 59B
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 59C
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 3(1), (2), (3)
  • Land Registration ActSection 68
  • Land Registration ActSection 69
  • Land Registration ActSection 70(a), (b), (d)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11, Rule 3(a)-(c)
  • Practice Directions on Standardization of Practice and Procedures in the Environment and Land Court, 2025Practice Directions 4, 7, 23(k), 23(m), 25(f)
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 1, 60(1)(g) and 159(2)(c) of the Constitution; sections 59B and 59C of the Civil Procedure Act; sections 68 and 69 of the Land Registration Act; Practice Directions 7, 23(k) & 25(f) of the PDELC, 2025

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Burgei v Kemboi & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E050 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3663 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Eldoret ELCLC Number E050 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3663/eng@2026-06-15

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