Biwott & another v Managing Director, East African Tea Trade Association (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 2992 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court paused a circular blocking tea farmers from selling green leaf from Sitoi Tea Estate until the main case is decided.
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 applicants were duly served with notice of the application
- 2.Whether the application for stay of implementation of the circular dated 31st December 2024 and for a restraining order against further circulars preventing hawking and purchase of green leaf from Sitoi Tea Estate is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte application for stay and restraining orders was properly before the court and merited
The court held the application properly served and unopposed, and granted the stay and restraining orders sought.
Counsel for the applicants swore affidavits of service dated 18th February 2025 and 5th March 2025 confirming the respondents were aware of the application, supported by the Ogada-vs-Mollin authority. There was no response filed by the respondents. On that basis, without any contested evidence or argument, the court found the application firm, cogent and meritorious and allowed it in full, with costs in the cause.
Legal principles established
#- Service of an application by affidavit of counsel on the respondents suffices to bring the application to the respondents' attention
- Where there is no response to an application and the material before the court is firm, cogent, the application may be allowed
Court orders
#- 1.An order for stay of the implementation of the circular dated 31st December 2024 pending hearing and determination of ELCLC E006 of 2023; Eastern Produce Kenya Ltd vs Kimaasas Farmers' Cooperative Society and others
- 2.A restraining order preventing the respondents from further issuing circulars preventing hawking and purchase of green leaf from Sitoi Tea Estate, pending hearing and determination of ELCLC E006 of 2023
- 3.Costs of the application in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in judgment
Relief refused
#Costs of the application payable immediately
Costs were granted but only 'in the cause', not as an immediate award
Costs
Costs 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.
In the foregone, the application is firm, cogent and meritorious
Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed in terms of orders 1 (c ) and (d) sought in the application as set out in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) hereinabove with costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number of the application itself is not stated in the judgment; the order is said to be in terms of 'orders 1 (c ) and (d)' while the prayers set out at paragraph 1 are labelled (a), (b) and (c)
Parties are not named in the judgment; the applicants and respondents are referred to only generically
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Biwott & another v Managing Director, East African Tea Trade Association (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 2992 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/2992/eng@2025-03-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.