Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Orero & 5 others v Ombewa (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 5338 (KLR)

Orero & 5 others v Ombewa (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 5338 (KLR) (18 July 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 5338 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MIGORI ENVIROMENTAL AND LAND ORIGINATING SUMMONS E002 OF 2024 GMA ONGONDO, J JULY 18, 2024 IN THE MATTER OF : SECTIONSS 37 AND 38 OF THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT CAP 22 AND IN THE MATTER OF: SECTION 30 (G) OF THE REGISTERED LAND ACT, CAP 300 AND IN THE MATTER OF: CLAIM FPR ADVERSE POSSESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 38 OF LIMITATIONS OF ACTION ACT BETWEEN PIUS AKUMU ORERO ........................................................................ 1ST PLAINTIFF PHILIP OSEWE ORERO .................................................................... 2ND PLAINTIFF LUKE OUMA ORERO ........................................................................ 3RD PLAINTIFF BENARD ONYANGO ORERO .......................................................... 4TH PLAINTIFF PATRICK OTIENO AKUMU ............................................................. 5TH PLAINTIFF NICANOR OWUOR AKUMU .......................................................... 6TH PLAINTIFF AND JOSEPH AYO OMBEWA ........................................................................ DEFENDANT https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5338/eng@2024-07-18 1

page 1 of 2

RULING 1. By a Notice of motion dated 3rd April, 2024, the Defendant/Applicant through M/s. Oyoo Z. Antone and Company Advocates, is seeking a temporary injunction against the six Plaintifis/Respondents in respect of the whole of suit property, LR No. North Sakwa/Kanyamgony/1247 pending the hearing and determination of this suit. 2. The application was duly served on the respondents’ counsel as revealed in Afidavit of service sworn on 15th May 2024 herein. 3. The respondents had the right to respond to the application or not; see also Ogada v Mollin (2009) KLR 620. 4. Clearly, the respondents failed to respond to the application. 5. Ms. Z. A. Oyoo learned counsel for the applicant has urged the court to grant temporary injunction sought in this application to preserve the suit property. That the respondent intends to dispose of the same. 6. In the premises, it would be necessary to preserve the suit property in the interim, pending the outcome of the suit in line with Ogada case (supra) and section 13 (7) (a) of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011). The application is unchallenged and meritorious 7. Wherefore, the application is hereby determined that the obtaining status quo over the suit property to be maintained by the parties pending the outcome of the suit. In particular, the parties shall not sell, charge, transfer, subdivide the suit property or erect any permanent structure thereon during the pendency of this suit. 8. Costs of the application be in the cause. 9. It is so ordered DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MIGORI THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2024. G.M.A. ONGONDO JUDGE In presence of: Mr. Z. A. Oyoo learned counsel for the Applicant Court Assistant – Tom Maurice https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5338/eng@2024-07-18 2

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.