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 ELCLC No. E033 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 5022 (KLR)

Kosgei v Barno & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5022 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 July 2026
GOG M A Ongondo
1,573 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kapsabet Environment and Land Court preserved the status quo over disputed Plot 33 Kabote Farm, letting the plaintiff keep possession but refusing a full injunction.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 21st November 2025 by the Plaintiff/Applicant in Kapsabet ELCLC No. E033 of 2025, seeking restraining orders against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from entering or interfering with plot No. 33 Kabote Farm, a proposed excision and subdivision of LR No. 9399/R, pending hearing of the suit. The Plaintiff claimed to be the lawful sole owner, in occupation since 2000, alleging trespass by the Defendants in 2025. The Defendants opposed, asserting the Plaintiff held only a 2-acre parcel at Kaptien, was evicted from it, and had fraudulently procured the change of ownership of plot 33 (a subdivision of plot 19) from the 3rd Defendant's name in the Kabote Farms Co-Operative Society area list while in permissive occupation. The Plaintiff filed a supplementary affidavit with photographs and submissions through CM Advocates LLP; the Defendants, through Yuri Law & Associates, argued the Plaintiff's title was tainted with illegality and that he came to equity with unclean hands. The court framed two issues: whether the Plaintiff met the threshold for injunctive orders, and what orders would serve the ends of justice. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman Ltd v Nielsen, and invoking section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, the court held that given the very highly contested facts, a status quo order was the appropriate remedy in lieu of an injunction. It ordered preservation of the status quo, with the Plaintiff continuing in ownership and possession and the land not to be sold, charged, subdivided, transferred or disposed of pending the suit, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff met the Giella v Cassman Brown threshold for a temporary injunction

Holding

The court did not grant the injunction; because the facts were highly contested it instead issued a status quo order in lieu of injunctive relief.

Reasoning

The court restated the Giella v Cassman Brown requirements (prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience) and Nguruman's admonition against leap-frogging between the hurdles. However, finding the suit to have very highly contested facts between the parties, it exercised its preservation jurisdiction under section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act to maintain the status quo rather than grant a restraining order.

p. 9
02

Power of the court to issue status quo and preservation orders

Holding

Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act empowers the court to grant interim or permanent preservation orders including injunctions and status quo orders; a status quo order preserves the land pending outcome of the suit.

Reasoning

The court invoked section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act and, relying on Festus Ogada v Hans Mollin and Musa Angira Angira v ICDC, held that a status quo order is meant to preserve the land in question pending the outcome of the suit, making it the appropriate remedy here.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • The Environment and Land Court is empowered to grant interim or permanent preservation orders, including injunctions and status quo orders.
  • Where facts are highly contested, a status quo order is the appropriate preservation remedy pending determination of the suit.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of status quo preserving the subsisting status over the suit land pending hearing and determination of the suit, with the Plaintiff/applicant continuing in ownership and possession, and the land not to be sold, charged, sub divided, transferred or disposed of to any other party pending the outcome of the suit
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the Application
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Order 40 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kosgei v Barno & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5022 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kapsabet ELCLC No. E033 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5022/eng@2026-07-29

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