Flow Farm Limited v Organics 4 Orphans International (Thrive For Good East Africa) (Environment and Land Case E034 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 806 (KLR) (18 February 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 806 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E034 OF 2025 CK NZILI, J FEBRUARY 18, 2026 BETWEEN FLOW FARM LIMITED ............................................................................ PLAINTIFF AND ORGANICS 4 ORPHANS INTERNATIONAL (THRIVE FOR GOOD EAST AFRICA) .................................................................................................. DEFENDANT RULING 1. On 22/10/2025, the court granted a conditional temporary injunction in favour of the plaintifi. The defendant, through an application dated 5/12/2025, seeks an eviction of the plaintifi from the suit premises, payment of rent at Kshs. 150,000/= per month with efiect from 29/11/2025 till eviction date, and the OCS, Kitale Police Station, to oversee the eviction from L.R. No. 2116/1090 (I.R No. 51922), by maintaining peace and security during the eviction. 2. The application is based on the grounds on its face and in a supporting afidavit of Ambrose Motian, sworn on 5/12/2025. It is deposed that despite the temporary orders of injunction, the conditions set therein have not been met in compliance with the order in the ruling of 22/10/2025 and orders of 14/11/2025. 3. The applicant deposes that on 22/11/2025, they were granted peaceful handover by one of the directors of the plaintifi, but after that, on 29/11/2025, the daughter of the director, Marion Chege, unlawfully re-entered the premises using hired goons and forcefully retook possession of the suit property, despite court orders aforementioned. 4. The applicant deposes that the continued default has made it impossible to resell the property and access funds necessary to continue its charitable activities, which benefit over 200,000 Kenyans in https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/806/eng@2026-02-18 1
page 1 of 3
sustainable farming and food security, despite entering into the sale of the subject property over two years ago. 5. It is not disputed that the order of this court issued on 14/11/2025 became spent by efiuxion of time on 22/11/2025 after the plaintifi defaulted in meeting the terms and conditions of the order. 6. The claim by the plaintifi was opposed through a statement of defence and counterclaim dated 5/9/2025. It is not clear if they paid the requisite filing fees for the counterclaim to make it a proper pleading in this suit. 7. Among the reliefs sought in the counterclaim is vacant possession, repossession of the suit property, and the OCS Kitale Police Station, to oversee the repossession by providing security during the exercise, to ensure peace and order. 8. The defendant’s substantive prayer in the counterclaim is a declaration that the addendum agreement dated 9/8/2024 is legally binding and stands terminated by virtue of Clauses 5.1. and 5.2. 9. The question of title or ownership of the suit premises and the basis upon which the plaintifi took vacant possession, or rights of either party to the sale agreement and its addendum, if there is default or breach, are issues which are yet to be heard and determined. 10. Eviction of a party by a land owner from private land is governed by Section 152E of the Land Act. It is only after compliance with preliminaries thereof that a court may confirm the notice and order the person to vacate or vary, alter, suspend, or make an addition to the notice as it deems equitable and just, under Section 152F thereof. 11. In Julius L. Marten v Caleb Arap Rotich [2021] eKLR, the court held that any eviction order has farreaching implications and entail the forceful removal of a party from land that he has been occupying or possessing for some time, and before such an order is issued, a court must be satisfied on its merits, which means any person who stand to be afiected by any order the court will make, is entitled to be heard. 12. In Witmore Investment Ltd v County Government of Kirinyaga & Others [2016] eKLR, the court held that where a party seeks an order that in efiect appears to resolve with finality an issue in controversy, or a contested issue, the application ceases to be interlocutory, and it is a misconception to describe it as such. 13. In my view, therefore, substantive orders may not be issued at an interlocutory stage, especially in this matter where the suit is yet to be heard on merits. Needless to say, even if the court were to find merit in the application, the applicant has not established that it has complied with the procedure in Section 152E of the Land Act and served the notice of eviction upon the respondent. 14. In the interest of justice, the parties should be heard first, as there are issues as alluded above in the pleadings, which viva voce evidence has to be tendered instead of dealing with them in a summary manner. See Benson Wekesa Milimo v National Land Commission & 2 others [2021] KECA 970 (KLR). 15. The upshot is that I find the application dated 5/12/2025 lacking merit. It is dismissed with no order as to costs. 16. Parties to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules by 30/4/2026. 17. Orders accordingly. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/806/eng@2026-02-18 2
page 2 of 3
RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026. In the presence of: Court Assistant - Dennis Kayugira for defendant/applicant present Plaintifi absent HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/806/eng@2026-02-18 3
page 3 of 3