Tiony & 2 others v Barngetuny (Sued in his capacity as the administrator of the Estate of Tabarngoror Kobot Rongoei - Deceased) (Land Case (Originating Summons) E009 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 64 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court stopped a landowner from subdividing disputed land until the case is decided, protecting families already living on it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the application for temporary injunction and maintenance of status quo pending hearing and determination of the main suit is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants were entitled to temporary injunctive and status quo orders restraining sub-division, partition and survey of the suit land pending trial
Yes - the application was found meritorious and allowed in terms of the prayers restraining sub-division and maintaining the status quo, with costs in the cause.
The applicants alleged they were in actual possession of 3.5 acres of the suit land registered in the Respondent's name, and that the Respondent planned to survey, sub-divide and partition it with a view to evicting them. The Respondent was duly served and filed no response. Guided by Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and its power under section 13(7)(a) of the ELC Act, the court held that status quo orders preserve the suit property pending outcome and found the application steadfast and meritorious.
Legal principles established
#- A status quo order is meant to preserve the suit property pending the outcome of the matter
- The Environment and Land Court has the mandate to grant interim preservation orders under section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary orders restraining the Respondent, his servants, agents, relatives and/or assigns from sub-dividing, partitioning and surveying land parcel No. Nandi/Kamoiywo/246 pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.Maintenance of the status quo prior to filing of the matter pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 3.Costs of the application to be 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, 2011 read together with Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Costs of the application payable by the Respondent
The court allowed the prayers sought but directed that costs be in the cause rather than awarding costs of the application to the applicants
Costs
Costs be 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.
It is well settled that status quo order is meant to preserve the suit property pending the outcome of the matter; see Ogada-vs-Mollin (2009) KLR 620.
In the end, I find the application steadfast and meritorious. The same is hereby allowed in terms of 3rd and 4th prayers sought therein and as set out in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) hereinabove but costs be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment misdescribes the statute and year: it refers to 'the Environment and Land Court 2015 (2011)' though the supporting grounds refer to the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011
The court says the application was allowed 'in terms of 3rd and 4th prayers sought therein' although only two prayers (a) and (b) are reproduced in the application, creating a discrepancy in prayer numbering
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tiony & 2 others v Barngetuny (Sued in his capacity as the administrator of the Estate of Tabarngoror Kobot Rongoei - Deceased) (Land Case (Originating Summons) E009 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 64 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/64/eng@2025-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.