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 AllowedKapsabet ELCC No. 29 of 2022· [2026] KEELC 4795 (KLR)

Kapkomoi v Korir alias Flomena Jelagat Mulwo (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4795 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 July 2026
GOG M A Ongondo
1,347 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court declined a temporary injunction but froze the land through a status quo order, meaning neither side can sell, subdivide, or build on the property until the case is decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet on a Notice of Motion dated 29th April 2026 in Kapsabet ELCC No. 29 of 2022, brought by the applicant/plaintiff seeking, principally, an injunction restraining the respondent from selling, subdividing or transferring the suit property, Nandi/Ndalat Settlement Scheme/908, and an order maintaining the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The applicant, who claims to be a purchaser in occupation of the property since 2013, asserted that the respondent had sold a portion to a third party and conducted a survey on 23rd April 2026 with intent to subdivide and transfer, and had moved to remove the caution over the property. The respondent, through a replying affidavit sworn on 4th June 2026, denied selling any portion to the plaintiff, described the applicant as a stranger and trespasser, and maintained that she is the bona fide sole registered owner; she urged that the application be dismissed with costs as unmerited and an abuse of process. Counsel for both parties relied on the Giella and Nguruman triple principles. The court, Ongondo J, held that an injunction is an equitable, discretionary remedy, and that it possesses power under section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act to grant interim preservation orders including status quo orders. Because the issues, notably whether the applicant is a purchaser or a trespasser, are highly contested, the court found that only a status quo order was merited at the interim stage rather than the temporary injunction sought. The application was held partially merited: an order of status quo over the suit property was issued restraining both parties from selling, charging, transferring, subdividing, disposing of or alienating any portion of the land or erecting permanent structures thereon pending the outcome of the suit, with costs of the application in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to grant the temporary injunction sought

Holding

Not granted; instead a status quo order preserving the suit property was issued in the terms of prayer 5

Reasoning

Applying the Giella/Nguruman triple test, the court observed that the issues in the suit and application are highly contested, including whether the applicant is a purchaser in occupation since 2013 or a trespasser, and such contested questions require a full hearing. The court therefore preserved the suit land, in the interim, to ensure a fair hearing under Article 50(1) and section 13(7) of the ELC Act.

p. 7
02

Whether a status quo order is available as an interim preservation measure

Holding

Yes; the court may issue status quo orders under section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015

Reasoning

The court held that section 13(7) of the ELC Act empowers it to grant interim preservation orders over the suit property, which include status quo orders preserving the subject matter pending the determination or termination of the suit, and this is consonant with the ends of justice and fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must sequentially satisfy the triple requirements of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience
  • The ELC has power to grant interim preservation orders including status quo orders to preserve the subject matter pending determination of the suit
  • An injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of status quo over the suit property Nandi/Ndalat Settlement Scheme/908 to be maintained by the parties pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.That the parties shall not sell, charge, transfer, subdivide, dispose of or alienate any portion of the suit land in any manner or erect any permanent structures thereon pending the outcome of the suit
  3. 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3 and 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015; sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kapkomoi v Korir alias Flomena Jelagat Mulwo (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4795 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kapsabet ELCC No. 29 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4795/eng@2026-07-22

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