Tarus & 2 others (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Elijah Kiptarus Kenei - Deceased) v Tesot & another (Sued as the Officials of Umoja Wa Wamawake Kipkeikei Women Group) (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3996 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court blocked an eviction because the notice didn't follow the Land Act, protecting an estate's land while preserving the other side's 0.5 acres.
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 plaintiffs have established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant a temporary injunction
- 2.Whether the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss not compensable in damages if the injunction is not granted
- 3.Whether the balance of convenience tilts towards granting or refusing the injunction
- 4.Whether the suit is res judicata in view of Kitale ELC No. 152 of 2007 and Eldoret Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2020
- 5.Whether the court lacks jurisdiction, and whether the plaintiffs are guilty of non-disclosure of material facts disentitling them to equitable relief
Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established
A prima facie case was established because the defendants' eviction notice did not comply with Section 152A-I of the Land Act and appeared to extend beyond the 0.5 acres decreed to them
The court examined the notice of eviction dated 3/3/2026 read together with the decree in the former suit and found it unclear whether the defendants were mandated to evict alleged illegal occupants beyond the 0.5 acres decreed to them. Since the notice did not comply with the Land Act eviction provisions, the plaintiffs' threatened right beyond the decreed boundary warranted rebuttal, satisfying the Mrao test for a prima facie case.
Irreparable loss and balance of convenience
Undisputed evidence of imminent or threatened eviction satisfied irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending trial
There was undisputed evidence of an eviction notice to vacate which had lapsed. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo until the suit was determined, but tailored the order so that the defendants retained their decreed 0.5 acres, and limited the interim order to one year, with security for costs as a condition.
Res judicata raised on the interlocutory application
The res judicata objection could not be determined because the defendants did not attach the pleadings and judgment of the former suit to their replying affidavit
Although the defendants alleged the suit was res judicata following Kitale ELC No. 152 of 2007 and the appeal in Eldoret Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2020, their replying affidavit annexed only the decree and judgment but not the pleadings, and no statement of defence raising the issue had been filed. The court therefore could not conclude that the plaintiffs were relitigating matters conclusively determined.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata must be strictly proved by the party alleging it, showing a previous suit between the same parties, the same title, final determination by a competent court and the same issues
- A notice of eviction that does not comply with Section 152A-I of the Land Act cannot found a lawful eviction
- Irreparable damage must be real, apparent and imminent, not based on mere fear or speculation
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary order of injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on or encroaching beyond the 0.5 acres decreed to them in the previous suit, maintaining the status quo until the suit is heard and determined
- 2.The interim order to last for one year only, without stopping the defendants from continuing occupation of the 0.5 acres decreed to them
- 3.The plaintiffs to deposit Kshs. 100,000/= in court as security for costs within 14 days, failing which the interim orders shall stand vacated
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land L.R. No. 6614/13; interim injunctive relief under civil procedure and the Land Act
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.
It does not comply fully with Section 152A-I of the Land Act. The court finds that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case.
The balance of convenience tilts in favor of maintaining the status quo until the suit is heard and determined.
The plaintiffs are ordered to deposit Kshs. 100,000/= in court as security for costs within 14 days from the date hereof; otherwise, the interim orders shall stand vacated.
Such an order, however, does not stop the defendants from continuing with the occupation of the portion of 0.5 acres decreed to them in the previous suit. The order shall last for one year only.
Issues in the judgment
#The application is referred to inconsistently as dated 29/4/2026 and 27/4/2026
The court records that no statement of defence had been filed despite the defendants raising res judicata, which they note was only argued in submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tarus & 2 others (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Elijah Kiptarus Kenei - Deceased) v Tesot & another (Sued as the Officials of Umoja Wa Wamawake Kipkeikei Women Group) (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3996 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kitale ELC No. E029 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3996/eng@2026-06-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.