Merengo v Singira & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6302 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Migori court froze all dealings in a disputed Kuria plot by granting a status quo order instead of an injunction, barring any sale, transfer or subdivision until the case ends.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a temporary order of injunction should issue restraining the respondents from trespassing on, building on, fencing, excavating, cultivating, demolishing or erecting structures on a 3-acre portion of LR No. Nyabasi/Busonga/320 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Whether a status quo order should prevail in lieu of the injunction sought
Key legal issues
#Interim preservation of the suit land pending trial
A status quo order was granted in lieu of the temporary injunction sought, restraining the parties from selling, charging, transferring or subdividing the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the suit
The application sought an interim injunction to prevent trespass, construction and destruction of the applicant's property on land registered in the name of a deceased person. Counsel for the applicant proposed a status quo order instead of the injunction, and counsel for the respondents raised no objection. The court therefore granted the consensual status quo order, anchored on Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act and the Ogada v Mollin decision, with costs in the cause.
Legal principles established
#- The Environment and Land Court may preserve the status quo of suit land pending the outcome of a suit under Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Court orders
#- 1.A status quo order to prevail over the suit land pending the outcome of the suit pursuant to Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011) and the decision in Ogada v Mollin (2009) KLR 670
- 2.The parties shall not sell, charge, transfer, or subdivide the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Costs of the motion in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015 (2011)
Relief refused
#Temporary order of injunction as framed in the motion
Counsel for the applicant himself implored the court to grant a status quo order in lieu of the injunction, and the respondent did not object; the court granted status quo instead of the injunction
Costs
Costs of the motion in the cause.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
So, the motion is hereby determined in terms of status quo order to prevail over the suit land pending the outcome of the suit pursuant to Sections 13 (7) (a) of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011) and the decision in Ogada v Mollin (2009) KLR 670.
For the avoidance of doubt, the parties shall not sell, charge, transfer, or subdivide the suit land pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
Costs of the motion in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The extract does not disclose the case number or the names of the parties; the judgment refers only to 'the applicant' and 'the respondents'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Merengo v Singira & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6302 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the extract (motion dated 15th February 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6302/eng@2024-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.