Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELCLA Number E030 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 5489 (KLR)

Jenniffer Kabiro Wairimu v Everlyne Jerotich

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
21 September 2026
6,631 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~27 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court can order full rental income accounts and property inspections when someone underpays court-ordered deposits during an appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret (Ondieki, J.) on a Notice of Motion dated 10 June 2026 by the Appellant/Applicant, Jenniffer Kabiro Wairimu, in an appeal (ELCLA E030 of 2025) against a ruling of the Magistrates' Court at Eldoret (Cheronoh Kesse, PM) delivered on 23 May 2025 in MCELC E002 of 2025. The Applicant sought a joint inspection of the rental premises on Kaptagat/Kaptagat/Block 1 (Misoi)/260, unrestricted access, and accounts of rental income, contending that the Respondent, Everlyne Jerotich, was remitting only Kshs. 20,000 monthly to Court pursuant to an order of Washe, J. of 28 January 2026 that all rental income be deposited in Court, despite claimed income of about Kshs. 99,000. The Respondent opposed, arguing the application was a fishing expedition, that she was compliant, that income was reduced by vacancies and expenses, and that management matters belonged to the trial court. The court framed three questions: jurisdiction, whether grounds were established, and costs. It held it had jurisdiction under section 63(b) and (e) of the Civil Procedure Act because the application arose from compliance with its own deposit order; distinguished Giella v Cassman Brown as inapplicable; found an accounting gap established on a balance of probabilities; and rejected the fishing-expedition argument. The application was allowed: joint inspection within 15 days with the Court Bailiff, unrestricted access pending appeal, accounts for January to May 2026 and monthly affidavits of account thereafter, a Bailiff's report, Bailiff costs treated as property expenses, costs of the application abiding the appeal, and directions to expedite the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELC on appeal to entertain the application

Holding

The Court has jurisdiction because the application arises from execution of and compliance with its own order of 28 January 2026 directing deposit of rental income in Court.

Reasoning

Although a first appellate court should not handle questions reserved for the trial court, the application is anchored on the ELC's own preservation order. Section 63(b) and (e) CPA empowers the court to make supplemental interlocutory orders to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, including directing security and just and convenient interlocutory orders.

p. 10
02

Whether the Applicant established grounds for the orders sought

Holding

Yes. An accounting gap was established on a balance of probabilities; the orders facilitate compliance with the deposit order and are just and convenient under section 63(b) & (e) CPA.

Reasoning

The deposit order required 'all rental income' to be deposited but did not define it. Only Kshs. 20,000 monthly was remitted against claimed income of Kshs. 99,000. The court found the application made in good faith, not a fishing expedition, and held that joint inspection and month-to-month accounting would ensure neither party derives unfair advantage through token compliance.

p. 13
03

Costs

Holding

Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the Appeal.

Reasoning

Costs are discretionary and follow the event, but the court found special circumstances in this interlocutory application and directed that costs await the outcome of the appeal rather than being awarded immediately to the successful applicant.

p. 15

Legal principles established

#
  • A first appellate court has jurisdiction under section 63(b) & (e) CPA to issue supplemental interlocutory and preservatory orders to give effect to its own deposit orders pending appeal.
  • The Giella v Cassman Brown conditions for interlocutory injunctions do not apply to applications for preservation-type supplemental orders.
  • An accounting gap in compliance with a deposit order can be established on a balance of probabilities and remedied through month-to-month accounting and joint inspection.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Joint inspection and visit to the suit property by the parties, their advocates and/or agents and the Court Bailiff, to ascertain the number of tenants and rental income, within 15 days
  2. 2.Parties granted unrestricted access to visit and inspect the suit property at reasonable times pending hearing and determination of the Appeal
  3. 3.Respondent to render a true and accurate account of all rental income collected from the suit property from January 2026 to May 2026
  4. 4.Respondent to render a monthly account by affidavit on the 15th day of every month from June 2026, detailing occupied and unoccupied units, rental income, arrears, expenses with supporting evidence, net income deposited and any other material fact
  5. 5.Court Bailiff to prepare a Report within 15 days of the visit setting out particulars of occupied and unoccupied units, rental income, arrears, expenses and amounts deposited
  6. 6.Costs of the Court Bailiff to be drawn from and counted as part of the expenses of running the suit property
  7. 7.Costs of the Application to abide the outcome of the Appeal
  8. 8.Appellant directed to take expedited steps to set the Appeal down for Case Management Conference on a priority basis

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 79, 95
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 63(b) & (e)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 2(2)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50(1)
  • Judicature ActSection 3

Cases cited (26)

  • Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" vs. Caltex Oil (K) Ltd
    [1989] KLR 1

    Definition of jurisdiction; jurisdiction must be inquired into before judgment

  • Samuel Kamau Macharia vs. Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others
    [2012] eKLR

    Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation

  • In the Matter of Interim Independent Electoral Commission
    [2011] eKLR

    Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation

  • Geoffrey K. Sang vs. Director of Public Prosecutions & 4 others
    [2020] eKLR

    Power should not be expanded through judicial craft

  • Chogley vs. The East African Bakery
    [1953] 26 KLR 31

    Courts must work within expressly conferred powers

  • Re: Hebtulla Properties Ltd.
    [1979] KLR 96; [1976-80] 1 KLR 1195

    Powers conferred by statute, not implication

  • Warburton vs. Loveland
    [1831] 2 DOW & CL. (HL)

    Powers conferred by statute, not implication

  • Lall vs. Jeypee Investments Ltd
    [1972] EA 512

    Powers conferred by statute, not implication

  • Attorney General vs. Prince Augustus of Hanover
    [1957] AC 436

    Powers conferred by statute, not implication

  • Republic vs. Kenya Revenue Authority Ex Parte Aberdare Freight Services Ltd & 2 Others
    [2004] 2 KLR 530

    Powers conferred by statute, not implication

  • Re Hardial Singh and Others
    [1979] KLR 18; [1976-80] 1 KLR 1090

    Powers conferred by statute, not implication

  • Giella vs. Cassman Brown & Co, Limited
    (1973) E.A. 358

    Conditions for interlocutory injunctions - held inapplicable to this application

  • Mbogo & Another v Shah
    [1968] EA 93

    Appellate court should not interfere with trial court discretion

  • Lengeny & 15 Others v Nyauma
    [2023] KEELC 15658

    Court should not allow its process to be used as a fishing expedition

  • Morgan Air Cargo Ltd vs. Everest Enterprises Ltd
    (2014) eKLR

    Costs are discretionary

  • Rose Kaume & Another vs. Stephen Gitonga Mbaabu & Another
    [2016] eKLR

    Court retains discretion over costs even where suit compromised

  • Christopher Kiprotich vs. Daniel Gathua & 5 others
    [1976] eKLR

    Discretion to be exercised judiciously

  • Mohindra vs. Mohindra
    (1953) 20 EACA 56

    Discretion to be exercised judiciously

  • Sharp vs. Wakefield
    [1891] 64 L.T Rep. 180 Ap. Ca.173

    Discretion exercised according to rules of reason and justice, not humour

  • Rooke's case
    5 Rep. 99b (1598)

    Definition of judicial discretion governed by rules of law and equity

  • Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR

    Adverting to Rooke's case on discretion

  • Cecilia Karuru Ngayu vs. Barclays Bank of Kenya & another
    [2016] eKLR

    Costs follow the event

  • Dipchem East Africa Limited vs. Karutturi Limited (In Receivership)
    [2015] eKLR

    Meaning of costs follow the event

  • Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others vs. Tarcholan Singh Rai & 4 others
    (2014) eKLR

    Costs follow the event; restitution in integrum purpose of costs

  • Joseph Oduor Anode vs. Kenya Red Cross Society
    [2012] eKLR

    Costs compensate rather than penalize

  • Orix Oil (Kenya) Ltd vs. Paul Kabeu & 2 Others
    (2014) eKLR

    Successful party ordinarily awarded costs

On appeal from
Magistrates' Court at Eldoret
MCELC No. E002 of 2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 63(b) & (e) of the Civil Procedure Act (supplemental proceedings in an appeal); sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 79 & 95 CPA invoked by the Applicant

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jenniffer Kabiro Wairimu v Everlyne Jerotich", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLA Number E030 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5489/eng@2026-09-21

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